Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 1

Graphics

• http://www.stormtrack.org/special/katrina-damage.gif Can be freely distributed, eds. add where applicable

Rename the page

Maybe we should ust rename this page to just "Hurricane Katrina". The (2005) looks tacky and there are no other Hurricane Katrina's with their own page. --CFIF 20:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That will likely come later; we need to wait and see what it does. Irene (1999) was a similar storm and its name wasn't retired...neither was Erin (1995). If Katrina strengthens considerably and appears headed for a major hurricane landfall on the northern Gulf Coast, it will be renamed. Otherwise, it will be left alone, because who knows, there could be an even worse Hurricane Katrina in 2011? BTW there have been two other Katrinas in the Atlantic and three in the Pacific. That is why there is a disambiguation page (which Hurricane Katrina redirects to). CrazyC83 20:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There's already a page on Tropical Storm Katrina (1999). We could omit the (2005) from all the links, like this: Hurricane Katrina.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Why the hell does that have its own page? The cyclone was not notable in any way except for the fact that it made landfall. bob rulz 21:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Good question, I don't know. The only Tropical Storm that deserves it's own page is Tropical Storm Allison (2001). --CFIF 21:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That page should redirect to 1999 Atlantic hurricane season and its contents should be moved under the Tropical Storm Katrina subheading. --tomf688^<TALK> 22:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I just put up a VfD (more like a VfR - vote for redirection) on Katrina (1999). CrazyC83 22:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No need anymore. I moved the contents to the hurricane article. --tomf688^<TALK> 22:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Now can we move the page to just Hurricane Katrina? (Assuming someone changes the main page link) --CFIF 22:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'd wait until we get a better idea on what Katrina does. It is only a Category 2 storm now, and could easily (although not likely to) weaken, and a Category 1 landfall likely won't be enough to retire the name Katrina. If it grows more, then the time will come. CrazyC83 22:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I doubt it will weaken, but let's hope it does. --CFIF 22:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wait for it, there's no rush. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I did it. A category 4 heading towards New Orleans is more than worthy. I also HATE having that year in there. Either it deserves its own article, or it doesn't - don't qualify it with a year. --Golbez 07:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Now that it is really strengthening (940 mb will likely make it a Cat 4 today) and moving north, the time has come. If it fizzles, we can change it back...we could be on our way to a record for retired names - Dennis, Emily, now (at this rate) Katrina, and we aren't even into September yet! (There will likely be more major hurricanes) CrazyC83 14:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Last year, the World Meterological Organization, retired, Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne, so it could be possible that this year will surpass that. --CFIF 14:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The National Hurricane Center does not retire tropical cyclone names. That task falls to the World Meterological Organization.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 15:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I'll fix that. --CFIF 16:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Holy cow

Look at this: [1] The named major storms that were within 400 miles of Katrina in the month of August. Allen, Celia, Camille, Andrew. If you remove Celia from the list, you have three of the most powerful Atlantic storms ever - and two struck land at intensity. Katrina sure has a nice pedigree. --Golbez 08:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Celia was no pussycat either...it was a borderline Category 3/4 storm but had strong gusts at landfall... CrazyC83 15:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

And those were all first to third storms of the season (A-C names) - this is the 11th (K name), and it is still August . . . MPF 22:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Worst case scenario - New Orleans

The 5am update has Katrina as a category 4 hurricane making a direct hit on New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain. You thought last year was bad? This is the worst case scenario by far. If that happens, we'll be looking at dollar figures beyond Andrew. (Probably not deaths; New Orleans has an excellent evacuation plan) This is definitely a storm to watch. --Golbez 09:12, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

It just does not to want to go north... However, the high pressure system seems to grow weaker now. As soon was we see Katrina make a turn, we'll know where people should get out of the way. My money is on Louisiana. Awolf002 11:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone within the cone of uncertainty should be getting out of the way though; you never know with hurricanes, they should have learned the lesson from Charley last year.

I definitely think the estimates of tens of thousands dead from a direct strike on New Orleans are heavily overstated; I'd say it would be more like 150-300 direct deaths (but many more indirect). The damage could easily approach $100 billion though in such a storm, and possibly even beyond their estimates! CrazyC83 14:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

CrazyC, are you aware of the fact that several million people live within the cone of uncertainty? It would be an epic nightmare trying to get those people out of there. This is why accurate forecasting is so crucial.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 15:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. Yes, such forecasting is crucial, but hurricanes are fickle creatures and do change their minds at the last minute... CrazyC83 16:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"Landfall between..."

I like the idea of using the numerical data from the NHC as a basis for reporting on the landfall probabilities. The region with a greater than 10% possibility of landfall is currently (as of 0900 UTC on the 27th) Freeport, Texas to Apalachicola, Florida. If you're going by the predicted storm track graphic, it's still not Pensacola, as the eastern boundary is actually closer to Panama City, and you'd also have to update the western edge to Port Arthur, Texas (or New Iberia, Louisiana, if you're rounding inward to Pensacola on the east side). There should be some sort of a standard, and whether it's the >10% probability according to NHC or their storm track graphic, it should be applied consistently. Before I fix this, any thoughts on which should be used? Chris 13:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The NHC white cone of uncertainty should be the standard used. If the projection is way out of whack though with other models it can be noted as well, but otherwise, keep to the NHC forecasts. CrazyC83 14:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Both products are NHC. They come from the same forecaster! My point is that, if we're using the cone graphic, then it should range (or should have, given the previous data under discussion) from Port Arthur to Panama city. If we use the numerical probabilities, it's Freeport to Apalachicola, but neither supported Freeport to Pensacola. Chris 15:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

That's the older one. The one as of 8:00 Eastern has the end of the cone as Western Escambia County. Leave it as Pensacola until the 10-11AM advisory comes out. --CFIF 14:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Which 0800 EDT graphic are you referring to? To my knowledge, the NHC is only issung 6 hour updates at this time, which makes 0500 and 1100 EST the times in question. There is no 0800 EDT update in their graphics archive. Regardless, even the 1000 CDT fresh update shows the cone well east of the Escambia County border. It's still at least 60 nm east of there, two counties over. "Western Escambia County" is the Alabama state line! Chris 15:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

At the 1000 CDT update, the NHC graphic appears to show the cone's boundaries at New Iberia, Louisiana and a point midway between Pensacola and Panama City, Florida, using NHC's reporting points only. However, Destin, Florida is pretty much right there. According to the NHC strike probabilities, the 10% range is still Freeport to Apalachicola. If we use a 15% cutoff, it looks more like the graphic at present, from New Iberia to Pensacola. Chris 15:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This makes little sense

Pressure down to 940 mb (possibly lower) and the intensity is still only 115 mph? (Bits and pieces of the 10:00 advisory are available and it shows 115 still) I would expect a special advisory in the next couple hours showing Katrina actually as a Category 4 storm with 135-140 mph winds... CrazyC83 14:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The Weather Channel says the Hurricane Hunter planes are heading into the storm now, so a sepcial advisory would seem likely. This could be the second worst (or worst) storm since Hurricane Andrew. --CFIF 14:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Once again! After rising up to about 950 mb, it is back down to 939 mb, yet still a 115 mph storm...have they missed some spots? CrazyC83 04:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No, she went through an eyewall rebuilding cycle. Let's hope she's doing it again at landfall. Eyewall collapse and rebuilding temporarily weakens a hurricane. As soon as it was done, the intensity built back quickly. Pollinator 06:39, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Katrina is now a CATEGORY FOUR hurricane with winds at ~145 mph. A special advisory is expected to come soon. -- RattleMan 06:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What's up with this in the opening paragraph? "It is the second-most intense named hurricane to impact the United States since 1851, with the only hurricane having a lower pressure being Hurricane Camille in 1969. Camille had 909 mb. (26.84 in.), while as of 7 AM EDT Katrina has 910 mb. (26.87 in.)." I assume this doesn't mean lowest pressure at landfall because Katrina has not yet made landfall at its current intensity yet, and a day out we can't speculate what Katrina's strength might be if and when it hits. If you mean lowest pressure at any time of a hurricane that went on to hit the US, the statement is still not close to being true. See Hurricane Mitch. It's also a bit disingenuous to talk about named hurricanes since 1851 when the first hundred years of that timeframe didn't really have named hurricanes. The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 was more intense. --guy without account

Moved offending paragraph to here:

It is the most intense named hurricane to impact the United States in recorded history, with the only hurricane having coming close being Hurricane Camille in 1969. Camille had 909 mb. (26.84 in.), while as of 8 AM EDT Katrina has 908 mb. (26.81 in.).

Evercat 12:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

See the refs on the page. Camille was officially 909 mb and weather channel on live television just announced katrina is 908 mb. The labor day hurricane of the 1930s was unnamed. I also put "take aim". Anything more? Hellohowareyou 12:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

But is it actually true that this is the most intense to "take aim"? The NHC page that lists those storms says that it "includes only major hurricanes at their most intense landfall". So there might have been more intense storms that also "took aim" but had weakened by landfall... Evercat 12:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point, what do you think of the new wording? Hellohowareyou 12:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but it will be interesting seeing the footage of New Orleans after this thing. Hellohowareyou 12:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Intensity

From the 10 am discussion:

"However, it is not out of the question that Katrina could reach Category 5 status at some point before landfall..."

Holy shit! That's one of about three models for a perfect storm!

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 16:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It could be possible. WTVT Chief Meteorologist Paul Dellegato said something along the lines of "A Category 5 is not put of the woods". --CFIF 16:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, E. what are the other models for "perfect storms"? I assume North Atlantic ones. Mitch? Direct hit on New York City by a Cat 4/5? -- 169.237.30.225 21:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, you guys nailed it. It looks like it's going to be a "perfect storm" after all. --Titoxd 21:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

169, the other perfect storm models are:

1. Direct hit-Miami-Category 5 (no, Andrew was not a direct hit)
2. Direct hit-New York City-Major hurricane
3. Stalling off coast-Central America-Category 5 (Mitch qualifies)
4. Travels up US East Coast-Major Hurricane (the whole way, sorry Donna)

Keep in mind that these are hypothetical models.--E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Preparedness links?

Should we start to list evacuation orders by parish? Or just link to the emergency web sites, like this Louisiana Emergency Preparedness? Awolf002 18:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If it has links to the local site, then only the central link. Otherwise, all of them should be listed. All states affected should be listed though. CrazyC83 18:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Oil supply vulnerability

Becoming a category 5 or not, somebody should cover implications on global oil price.

Oil Storm eh? --TIB (talk) 13:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Any word on if this storm has caused damage to offshore oil rigs?--JD79 19:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No. However, Katrina could become the first natural disaster affecting oil prices in a significant way as the target area is responsible for one-sixth of US supply. All I say for now is, let's watch this space.

As of 1:45EST, it's being said that Pres. Bush will be making a decision later today on whether or not to loan out part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to make up for lost capacity. Note the semantics: if it's loan, then the gov't will be given the oil back by industry later, so there won't be a large decrease in current prices, just the avoidance of a large increase. (Correct me if I'm wrong, it's all very fluid, no pun intended.) --JD79 17:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina will have a very, very strong impact on offshore oil rigs. One of Taylor Energy's largest rigs was moved approximately 200ft along the ocean floor during Hurricane Ivan (the rig is still not active). This example can help us grasp the impact of a major storm upon the oil producing facilities in Louisiana. The rigs have already been evacuated, but the price of oil will not rise until the storm has passed (a federal law prevents price hikes in preparation for the storm). Additionally, a refinery in Pascagoula, MS may be forced to shut down for an extended period of time depending upon the damage inflicted. There is also no word on how this storm will effect the shape of the sea floor. This is important because a great amount of capital is spent on mapping and determining the safest and most effective drilling areas. The shape of the shoreline will also be changed, as much of the land is loose sediment deposited by the Mississippi river quite some time ago. As an additional note on the value of Taylor corporation... Taylor Energy is the largest prive oil firm in Louisiana and possibly the United States. While it is not traded, its status with banks and other investment institutions may be in jeaopardy during a reconstruction process following this storm. The company had planned to start pulling oil from the Gulf using a new rig to be unleashed on Labor day. Obviously, those plans will have to be changed. This will come as a strike to the value of oil in a larger sense (since Taylor pumps its oil to larger firms like Shell, BP, etc).--BrettBergeron 21:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Brett. Let's see in a few days if and how this shapes the signature of Katrina

Vandalism

People are going to have to monitor this article 24/7 we have had people vandalize this page multiple times. --CFIF 23:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Such is the price of being on the Main Page... -- RattleMan 00:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the 'waterworld' picture. Very poor taste.

someone just did it again.....

Evacuation

I just heard on the Weather Channel that for the first time in history, a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans has been issued. However, I won't put it in the article until I can corroborate it online, which I haven't been able to yet. --Golbez 06:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I just heard on the same channel that the mayor was considering it. On CNN.com, I could swear I saw the text "mandatory" on it. Currently on CNN and MSNBC, they're doing Larry King Live and MSNBC Investigates, none of which are talking about Katrina. But I was suprised when I turned to TWC and saw a 8 PM to 4 AM long program for special coverage of Katrina! -- RattleMan 07:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The CNN.com article currently up doesn't say anything about mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, but our article does say so (it was added by an anon). So is it correct? Evercat 12:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Now it reads:

A mandatory evacuation is being considered for the first time ever in the major American city of New Orleans

Is this true? A mandatory evacuation has never even been considered before? Evercat 12:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That is what all the 24 hour news stations are saying. Who knows? Could be another Dan Rather. Hellohowareyou 13:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This site says that there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans for Hurricane Georges a few years ago: "Well, Hurricane Georges was one for which the track had the potential of flooding the city. So the people were given a mandatory order to evacuate the city," says Suhayda." [2] Lijil 12:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the mandatory evacuation is in effect for the city of New Orleans. The mayor himself announced this at the press conference about 11am/est

Mandatory evacuation is also in affect in Biloxi Miss. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew, Betsy and now Katrina.

I would just like to point out that Katrina is right now at a category 4. Have you ever looked at Hurricane Betsy in 1965? Well its very intriguing that Katrina has taken almost the same direct path. Hurricane Betsy was a Hurricane 5. Also Hurricane Andrew, Betsy and now Katrina are hurricanes that went through Florida and then into Louisiana. Hurricane Andrew as you all know was a category 5 aswell.

Andrew was not a 5 the second time it made landfall, in Louisiana. By that time it was "only" a 3. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Betsy reached 155mph at its peak, 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana. By comparison, Katrina measured 150mph and strengthening, 270 miles off the coast.

Its at 160 mph and nothing stoping it.

175mph now per CNN.--CFIF 14:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Could this hit 200 mph? Scary to think, this may beat out even Super Typhoon Tip in the western Pacific...CrazyC83 14:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

CFIF - CNN gets their info from the NHC/TPC. Check their website here for info straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. ;) --tomf688^<TALK> 15:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not a chance this is beating out Tip. With winds or pressure. Hell, this may not even beat out Gilbert.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Was the quoted $1 Billion damage done by Betsey in 1965 dollars or 2005 dollars. I thiink this should be noted in the article. --Revengeofthynerd

Annularity

The line in the main article: "Katrina has reached the status of an annular hurricane" is significant. Can someone substantiate the annularity of Katrina?

What is an annular hurricane? --CFIF 15:03, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

An annular hurricane keeps its strength longer, compared to "normal" hurricanes.

Moved it under historical analysis section. This needs a few more sentences describing why this is significant or it should be removed. --tomf688^<TALK> 15:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

At this point, it seems to have lost its annularity, as the west and southwest side of the storm lost punch as the northern edges of the storm went over Plaquemines Parish. I think we ought to make a historical note that Katrin was indeed axisymmetric and annular from 8-12 hours before landfall, but it is not such a beast as it actually nears landfall. GeofFMorris 12:12, 29 August 2005 [UTC]

The significance of annularity lies in the postulated perseverance of the hurricane's strength. If a 170mph annular hurricane stays above, say, 120mph one hour longer compared to a non-annular hurricane, its destructive power to infrastructure and life will be much larger. However, we only have the scientific article on annularity, to go by.

Don't forget

Once Katrina makes landfall, and the pictures of the devastation come in, it is not over. My thought right now is that the ENTIRE inland path will be affected by at least tropical storm force, if not hurricane force, winds, and potentially catastrophic flooding. Enormous rain in (mostly) already saturated areas with the eastern end of Katrina pointing at the Appalachians is just asking for epic flooding. If you are in a low-lying area anywhere in the 3-day path, consider evacuating, no matter how far inland you are. The $100B in damage from New Orleans could easily grow to $120B if the catastrophic flooding affects urban areas. CrazyC83 15:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Has Katrina been underestimated...

Has Katrina been underestimated from the beginning? I am starting to think that she should have been named much earlier, been upgraded to a hurricane much earlier and was really a Category 2 hurricane at first landfall. The pressure readings also often made little sense for her category - until now. They have finally caught up to her it seems... CrazyC83 15:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently wind speeds lag the pressure drop. As I understand it, the pressure differences (between the center and edge of the hurricane) are an indication of the forces spinning up the hurricane's winds. A large hurricane (in area) like Katrina takes more work to spin up. So you have a longer lag time before the winds pick up. -- KarlHallowell 21:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Fatalities

Could somebody double check the number of people she's already killed? The info box says 6 direct, 3 indirect, which equals 9. Down below, the text says 9, then breaks it down by location to 3+1+4, which is 8. Either the geographic breakdown's missing a death (and place?), or the other sections are wrong. The Literate Engineer 15:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if it helps but the NYTimes.com article currently states "Hurricane Katrina churned through the Gulf of Mexico on Friday, after cutting a swath through southern Florida and leaving seven people dead. Three people who died in the hurricane were crushed by falling trees. One man lost control of his car and rammed into a tree. Three others drowned, including two who tried to ride out the storm in a houseboat."--JD79 19:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted content

Hurricane Betsy

"New Orleans' worst hurricane disaster happened 40 years ago, when Hurricane Betsy blasted the Gulf Coast. Flooding approached 20 feet deep in some areas, fishing villages were flattened, and the storm surge left almost half of New Orleans under water and 60,000 residents homeless." [3]

Hurricane Betsy was a powerful storm of the 1965 Atlantic hurricane season, which caused enormous damage in the Bahamas, Florida, and Louisiana.

Betsy was one of the most intense, deadly, and costly storms to make landfall in the United States. Betsy was just short of Category 5 strength at landfall in Louisiana. The storm killed 76 people, which makes it one of the most deadly hurricanes to hit the US (as of 2004, number 18). Betsy caused $1.42 billion in damage, which when adjusted for inflation amounts to $8.5 billion (2000 dollars), placing Betsy as the seventh most expensive storm to make landfall in the U.S. WAS 4.250 16:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mississippi Delta

The effect of Hurricane Katrina on the Mississippi Delta will include changes to river flow, damage to wetlands, and disruption of oil supply thus affecting oil prices.

Hurricane Katrina is certain to remake the paths of the Mississippi Delta bayou due to storm surge and flooding thoughout the Mississippi embayment.

Larger river shifts can not be predicted. But the mouth of the Mississippi River has shifted repeatedly over time. Since a canal was built in the early nineteenth century, the river has been seeking the Atchafalaya River mouth, some 60 miles (95 km) from New Orleans. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains a massive system of locks to keep the river in its present course.

The flood waters will futher wash away already endangered wetlands. "According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), "the swamps and marshes of coastal Louisiana are among the Nation's most fragile and valuable wetlands, vital not only to recreational and agricultural interests but also the State's more than $1 billion per year seafood industry." Louisiana's wetlands (within 80 miles of the coast and extending for just under 200 miles along the coast) represent about 40 percent of the wetlands in the continental United States; they also show about 80 percent of the Nation's wetland losses." [4]

"Louisiana is a primary producer of energy resources. The state provides about 15 percent of the nation's crude petroleum and over 20 percent of its natural gas supplies. The combined value of these two products averaged $16 billion annually for the 1986-91 period. Nearly 90 percent of this output is extracted from the coastal area and adjacent offshore waters. Abundant supplies of crude petroleum and natural gas, fresh process water, and nearby water transportation account for the concentration of refining and petrochemical manufacturing facilities located in the project area, primarily along the Mississippi and Calcasieu rivers. These industries, which rank Louisiana as the nation's third largest chemical producer, ship commodities valued at nearly $50 billion annually. There were over 90,000 refining and refining-related jobs in the state during 1992." [5] WAS 4.250 16:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans Levies and Dams

Does anyone have information about the expected strength of levies and dams around New Orleans? Streyeder

I've heard they can withstand flooding waters of 14 feet. --tomf688^<TALK> 17:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

That would be a Category 3 hurricane, although with waves it would likely only withstand a Category 2 hurricane. CrazyC83 17:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard recent reports that some believe the levies may not hold the expected storm surge. Mac Domhnaill 22:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The NWS's description of hell

URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA 1011 AM CDT SUN AUG 28 2005

...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...

.HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.

MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.

THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL. PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.

HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.

AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.

POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BEKILLED.

AN INLAND HURRICANE WIND WARNING IS ISSUED WHEN SUSTAINED WINDS NEAR HURRICANE FORCE...OR FREQUENT GUSTS AT OR ABOVE HURRICANE FORCE...ARE CERTAIN WITHIN THE NEXT 12 TO 24 HOURS.

ONCE TROPICAL STORM AND HURRICANE FORCE WINDS ONSET...DO NOT VENTURE OUTSIDE!

-- Golbez 17:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well. --tomf688^<TALK> 17:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Where's a link to that?? --CFIF 17:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That sounds a little too..."Old Testament" to be from NOAA. --JD79 19:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a NOAA issued alert. Here is a real NOAA alert, as of 1pm today. The only occurances of the above text seems to be in usenet groups. Eclipsed 18:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That's what I think too. It was more likely initiated by local media. Nonetheless, the description can be nothing short of the truth... CrazyC83 18:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been looking for a source for that for awhile and I think it's bogus. There's nothing bogus about the CONTENT though -- they should go ahead and use it. There are way too many people who still think they can tough this one out at home.

Here's a source: [6]. Second bulletin down. I suppose it's a bit late to gather two of every animal? RADICALBENDER★ 19:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well don't I look/feel stupid...do a search on Bender's link for "livestock" and you'll find the correct bulletin--JD79 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It's on the front page of the Drudge Report at this moment, and seemed to me to be "scripted". But, it's on a NOAA server. Perhaps the person who wrote it was given an open channel to report his worst fears, without being censored. Conjures up an image of someone tapping a morse code blipper as the waves rise. Seems calculated to distress, though; the detail about the "hardiest trees surviving... but defoliated" is melodramatic. Still, up there with the "oh the humanity" Hindenburg disaster commentator. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Link is gone again, anyone got a static source?--24.61.140.46 03:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's the same page with most of the same information - but the warning above ("FEW CROPS WILL REMAIN" etc) has been taken off. Perhaps the people at NOAA decided that it was too vivid. Or perhaps they were hoaxed. -Ashley Pomeroy 06:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's back. But it starts at "AT LEAST ONE HALF..." and ends with "...TOTALLY DEFOLIATED". Perhaps someone was told off. They're probably busy there. -Ashley Pomeroy 06:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

and looking back, we're all amazed just how accurate this warning was.... Eclipsed 12:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Metric

Please, don't convert things to metric. Primarily, American people are reading this, and most of us aren't super familiar with metric. If you have the urge to put something in metric, please put something like this ---mph (--- km/h). --CFIF 19:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

That is the normal standard with metric in brackets. Many of the site visitors are from countries where metric is standard...so it needs to be included. Also what about hurricanes hitting countries that use metric (i.e. Emily)? CrazyC83 19:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international project so I think it would be best to use SI units. If non SI units are needed then they could be placed in brackets like done in the Mount Everest article. Glome83 20:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You probably didn't see this, but that Glome83 guy was REMOVING the mph and replacing it with km/h. I got into a small edit war with him (check History; also of note, I made a typo, that should say "If you want to use metric") and then told him that this was the American basin, and if he wants to use that, to put them in paranthesese. -- RattleMan 20:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was talking about above. I left him a message on his talk page. I think he's here to vandalize pages. --CFIF 20:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

This Guy is a coward, he deleted my comment. --CFIF 20:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I checked his talk page after I saw your earlier post but before you posted the latest one, and I saw that too. BTW, I was talking to CrazyC83 when I said "you probably didn't see this". Sorry for not being clear ^^; -- RattleMan 20:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I checked the history of my talk page - no comments made... CrazyC83 20:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

C'mon guys, hurricanes are rated in knots. You know, throw the log over the taffrail, invert the hourglass, and count the knots in the cord which go by until the glass runs out. --Kbk 20:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Learn to speak metric, seriously, try taking any American science course w/o knowing metric--172.153.128.93 21:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

How about you learn to speak Imperial? Doesn't seem fair, does it? --tomf688^<TALK> 23:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I know what a meter and a liter are, but that doesn't mean I think in them. Americans understand miles per hour; wanting to make an article incomprehensible to the people interested in it is little more than vandalism. 24.34.190.187 00:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• For future reference: since this article talks about an event that is mainly of concern in the United States, use British units. There's no problem in adding SI units in parentheses afterwards, just don't delete the Imperial units. PLEASE! --Titoxd 23:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Please use both, however you decide to do it with parentheses etc. Wikipedia is written for an international audience - lacking imperial would make it difficult for Americans, lacking metric would make it difficult for everyone else, so both is the way to go.

184 mph

What's the source for 184? Last I heard, it's still at 175. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The Weather Channel was saying 184. --CFIF 20:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

A screenshot of the 184 wind reading would be good if there is one available, kinda like this one I took earlier today. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC) (PS Here are some more.)

There was never an official source for 184, I believe it's something TWC incorrectly calculated. The 5:00 advisory has just been released, with winds down to 165 despite a pressure drop to 902. The Great Zo 20:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It apparently came from a NOAA aircraft, but I've never heard an official report.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that they took the 160 knot flight-level winds which were reported... and converted it to MPH (which by a rough guess would probably be around 184 MPH). Obviously, there's many reasons why it's improper to simply do that. The Great Zo 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming

Would be nice if there'd be some information on (or link to) some background information or explanation: Really heavy hurricanes are getting more frequent, and most scientists suggest global warming as the most probable explanation for that.

You might find this to be of interest: NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory -Loren 21:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, you're bound to offend someone with this, half the people here don't even believe in dinasours--172.153.128.93 21:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Since when is "offensivness" a consideration in good science? I don't claim to know all the answers, I'm not even claiming that everything in the link is right. But having worked with scientists from NOAA and NCAR before, I'd say they do good science and wouldn't hesitate to report or publish things regardless of politics (whether or not politicians listen to them is something else altogether). Most climatologists agree that global warming is occuring. Many details and effects however are still a topic of intense research. -Loren 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I find your premise incorrect - really heavy hurricanes are NOT getting more frequent. You want bad? Look at the late 50s/early 60s, and the early 1930s. Furthermore, pretty much every individual meteorologist involved in hurricane prediction (particularly Dr. Gray) say global warming has nothing to do with it - it's simply the natural cycle. --Golbez 21:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

According to current results (see reference section) they are not getting more frequent but more powerful.

Remember also, before the 1960s there were no satellites to work from, so many fish-spinning storms went undetected. CrazyC83 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

An interesting chartHektor 02:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice to find global warming info if there is one, but you'll be hard pressed to find a government based link since according to the U.S. government global warming does not exist. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

There are also top scientists not working for the US government. There are articles in Nature and Science on this topic. You cannot get more scientific credit than by publishing there. I put a link to a New Scientist article describing this research in common terms in the reference section.

if you check the page history you'll see some propagandists are silently removing any mention of global warming and hoping it will be lost in the flurry of editing

Regardless of editors' stance on global warming, it is wiki-worthy to know that the major of New Orleans has one. After the Kyoto protocol was rejected by the administration, the mayor of New Orleans signed up with other mayors to reduce emissions in their cities. From The Guardian (May, 2005):

Ray Nagin, the mayor of low-lying New Orleans and a Democrat, told the New York Times that he joined the coalition because a projected rise in sea levels "threatens the very existence of New Orleans".

Quaternion 21:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I was just coming here to suggest a link to the Time magazine article, Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ivan near New Orleans

In 2004, Hurricane Ivan made landfall near New Orleans, but although it was a Category 5 storm at times during its passage through the Caribbean and Gulf, by the time it reached the Louisiana coast it had fallen in strength to Category 3.

Ivan made landfall in Gulf Shores, Alabama, which is at least 150 miles away, probably closer to 200, so this really isn't serving anyone a purpose by having that sentence in the article; it's not correct. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

It should be removed entirely in my opinion. It's inaccurate and irrelevant.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oil industry section

I added some factual material to the "oil industry" section, commenting out the synopsis of Oil Storm [7], and had it immediately reverted by MPF. If this was an edit conflict (I didn't notice the {{inuse}} that was added while I was editing), I apologize for the inconvenience; if it wasn't, I won't go to war (beyond restoring it once in case it was an edit conflict), but mightn't some actual information on the projected impact be better to have than a duplicate of Oil Storm? ~~ N (t/c) 22:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nick - yes, it was an edit conflict unfortunately, these things can happen in fast-moving articles; do please re-add your para - MPF 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The events in the movie Oil Storm are high ly fictitious. I've removed the compason here. The rigs out there are designed to withstand these extreme conditions. If you want to compare the two it belongs on the oil storm page. ~~----

Superdome

"However, since the elevation of the Superdome is about 3 feet above sea level, the forecasted storm surge could possibly cause flooding on that site."

But on the third hand, the Superdome is over 200 feet tall (and shaped, it looks to me, exactly like a dam), so mightn't it only allow as much water in as will flow through the lower levels? And wouldn't there be enough space above the water level to hold most/all the people there? ~~ N (t/c) 22:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

But on the fourth hand, when the roof comes off and falls down inside . . . MPF 22:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Which would happen why exactly? This isn't a tsunami. ~~ N (t/c) 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, for starters, a wall could be taken out just by wind load. The load depends on a couple of factors: the building's shape and dimensions, the windspeed & direction, and the surrounding terrain. The effect depends on actual load versus the design load. If the actual load exceeds the design load (which the highest expected load multiplied by a factor of safety), then wind alone can tear the building apart - same as a tornado could. The forces are no different than the ones that pick up and fling debris. Another possibility is that it dumps enough rain on the building to cave in the roof, although that I doubt would happen, given that roof loads tend to have a pretty good factor of safety, live load area reduction isn't allowed, and the roof shape has to allow for pooling - which I domes don't usually cooperate with. Still, it could happen. And finally, if storm surge - or even a big enough wave - hits the walls, it could damage them. As far as the potential for damaging structures goes, the distinction between a hurricane's storm surge and a tsunami can be a pretty moot point: both have a mass of water packing a lot of kinetic energy smacking into a structure. And you don't have to totally knock a structure over to take it out, either: do enough damage to a few supports or connections, and the whole thing will come down under its own weight (let alone a hurricane's live load) just because the change in load distrubtion can overload the undamaged portions of a structure. It's the basic idea of what happens if you and your friend are moving a couch that's almost, but not quite, too heavy for the both of you and I come along and break one of your friend's arms. All of a sudden, the three remaining unbroken arms are holding 1/3 of a couch instead of 1/4 of a couch, and that means it's become too heavy for each arm and yall drop the couch on your feet. Obviously, though, this was taken into account when the decision to use it as a shelter was made. For starters, wind loads are based on historic winds, so all coastal buildings are designed with hurricanes in mind, and when we build something that's intended to hold as many people as the Superdome is, it tends to get a higher factor of safety than, say, an ordinary house, if for no other reason than that so many more people will die if it collapses. The Literate Engineer 23:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the Superdome article; it's built for 200mph winds and at least 30ft water to the second deck.
--Baylink 22:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's going in the article. ~~ N (t/c) 22:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is built for 200mph winds, 175mph is cutting it very close. I hope 200mph is an under-estimate. Ehrik 23:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Echoing User:The Literate Engineer's comments above, a civil engineer from Baton Rouge, Louisiana was on CNN this morning. He was talking about the roof being built to withstand 200mph winds, but he also said that is for the intact roof. Once a hole is opened up, the wind can use that hole to peel back more of the roof. Clearly damage has already been done by these sub-200 mph winds, and more severe damage is possible. Johntex 15:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming most of the surge would come from Lake Pontchartrain and that the Mississippi levees wouldn't be overtopped. So while there could be flooding on the site, the people inside should be able to move to the upper levels. Flooding would greatly hamper rescue and emergency services, and officials are expecting loss of power and possibly sanitary facilities.--Kbk 00:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Where does the 12,000 capacity come from? Is that an official figure for how many are expected to seek shelter? The Superdome article indicates a capacity around 70,000. If there are 100,000 people left in New Orleans, 12K isn't going to cut it.--Kbk 00:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As of 28Aug05 2200 CDT, an NBC reporter on the scene stated that there were 30,000 refugees in the Superdome.

I was just watching the NECN and it's starting to rain and blow on the long lines of people waiting to get in. According to a report I heard earlier, they are screening everyone for weapons and explosives.--Kbk 00:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

According to a report from Terry Ebbert of New Orleans Homeland Security, from WWL Channel 4 at approx. 9:32pm CDT, temperatures will reach 120-130 degrees Fahrenheit, and it will likely be raining inside the building - after the power (and Air Conditioning) fail. Things are going to be quite miserable for the people staying there. Zzxcnet 04:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Goldblatt from FAUX News...excuse me, FOX News, just reported that the authorities kicked a couple of guys out of the Superdome because they were fighting. Since when is a fist-fight a Capital Offense? I'm not familiar with FEMA protocols, but does a state-of-emergency automatically mean martial law? Those guys have no where to go. They will die outside.--Stroker And Hoop 04:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess they get a Darwin award--Kbk 05:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Terminology the Mayor and FEMA and Red Cross have repeatedly stated there are _NO_ "shelters" in New Orleans, there is no where safe enough to call a shelter. The superdome, and the other 10 designated spots are "refuges of last resort." Rick Boatright 04:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Behold the power of Wikipedia. Obviously the Mayor, FEMA, and Red Cross need to visit the site more often:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelter

Shelter can refer to several things:

A place that protects, to a larger or smaller extent, against some or all of the following: the weather (precipitation, wind, heat, cold)

So yes, there ARE "shelters" in New Orleans, and the Superdown, er, Superdome, IS a "shelter." Just because they want to call it a "refuge of last resort" doesn't mean that their doublespeak will fly. It's like the United States calling a suspect a "person of interest" to avoid calling them a "suspect" and thus avoiding the hassle of numerous legal issues. --Stroker And Hoop 04:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As of 8:30 a.m. EST, the Superdome is fluctuating with random amounts of power. Full power has been lost at least twice, and reports are varying on its current condition. The consensus seems to be that it is running on backup generators and as a result of this the air conditioning is out. --Spanky The Clown 12:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

How strong?

Umm.. which is stronger, Camille or Katrina? This article says that the peak pressure was 902 mb, and says that it is "slightly stronger" than Camille, yet the Camille article says that its peak pressure was 901 mb, which is a hair lower, but still lower. Is the Camille article wrong, or is this one wrong? --Titoxd 00:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The Camille article is wrong. --Golbez 00:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Camille had stronger winds though: 190 mph.

--E. Brown

NHC/TPC updates

They were providing two-hour updates and position fixes every hour before Katrina's landfall in Florida, but they're sticking to the three-hour updates now, even though Katrina is much stronger and far more dangerous. Any guesses why? --tomf688^<TALK> 01:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Probably they will start after the 10:00 advisory. In addition, hourly position estimates will likely be initiated. CrazyC83 01:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Apache editing error?

When I'm trying to edit or save changes I get the following error message:

Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in
/usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 380

Am I doing something wrong? Thank you. -- CBasturea 01:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Getting the same error, I belive they are trying to fix the page ( After my screw up, sorry )After they clean it up will be able to access the page.

I'm also going to edit the webcam page to get quality webcams up for the vistors... If anyone have good quality *LIVE* webcams post them up. -- Dago 01:60, 29 Augest 2005 (UTC)

WEBCAMS

Should we add a seperate WEBCAM section (temporarily) or should we add a subsection under Resources? Also use this section to post quality LIVE webcams -- Dago 01:65, 29 Augest 2005 (UTC)

Category 6?

170.20.96.59 has just updated this article to state that, if the hurricane's winds exceed 200 mph, it'll be considered a "Category 6" hurricane. Is that true? Unlike the Fujita scale for tornadoes, I've never heard of even a disputed "Category 6." If true, the statement should say "maximum sustained winds," since there have already been reports of gusts above 200 mph. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 02:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's not true. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale only goes up to Category 5. Anything else is pure hogwash. --Titoxd 02:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • News channels here in Louisiana have been saying a lot of things like "Category Five-and-a-half," so I'm not surprised if that's where the IP got that. There's certainly no such official designation, though. Penelope D 03:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of ridiculous crap out there. This storm's highest winds (175 by most reports), doesn't scare Camille/Allen's 190!

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Question regarding Landfall Times

Does anyone know if hurricane landings are correlated with time of day? Does one hour of the day see more landfalls (i.e. mornings)? Does one time of day yield greater damage (i.e. a 4am landfall causes fewer casualties)?

Just curious, --211.31.69.6 02:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)kradak

To the first two questions, no. High tide is the worst possible scenerio. --Holderca1 03:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Predicted landfall (Grand Isle 08:00) [8] is just one hour after the scheduled high tide (2.5 feet) [9]. But Lake Ponchatrain has high tide some 8 hours later, only showing a tidal difference of a half a foot...so this is a relative blip. [10]

Landfall's measured by the edge of the eye, right? Or is it when sustained hurricane-force winds reach land? The Literate Engineer 03:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's either eyewall or estimated eye center. So, as of landfall, full force winds have already been felt for some time. Donovan Ravenhull 03:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Landfall is when the center of circulation crossing the shoreline. --Holderca1 15:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Program

I have added a section regarding consequences on the Space Shuttle Program in case of major damage to Michoud Assembly Facility.Hektor 02:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Live TV Feeds

(I've combined two related catagories into this one.

Live TV Feeds (mms: link for live TV from Biloxi)

Does anyone know how to force a link on that url?
--Baylink 22:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Other than incorrectly changing the scheme to http, which it is not?
--Baylink 23:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Most major cable news networks are covering this storm. Check Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or the Weather Channel. --tomf688^<TALK> 23:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've been archiving the WWL4 live feed since 1:40pm local time, since portions of it may be of historical significance if the doomsday scenario plays out. Is anyone else doing this also, in case my connection drops? Zzxcnet 03:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how to archive live video, but I'd be willing to if you tell me what program you recommend, etc. to do it. I suppose JetAudio would do it on the Windows Platform if I can find it on my computer. AndyLiNY 03:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm using mplayer -dumpstream -dumpfile blahblah.wmv mms://streamurl/whatever Zzxcnet 04:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you could use " Streambox " Dago

I'm now archiving the WAPT feed as of 11:22am CDT. If anyone wants a portion of my stream dumps for reference, leave me a message on my talk page. Zzxcnet 04:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a URL for the dumps? If you do, can I download them? Dago

I assume that you are trying to sign your name. If so, the correct way is to use four tildes in a row. Anyway, I'm concerned with copyright issues posting a link to my ripped streams... not to mention bandwidth issues. If you need them, leave me a note (with your logged in username) on my talkpage and I'll try to work something out to get them to you. Zzxcnet 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

WMV Links

Can someone tell me how to get the MMS:\ link from Windows Media Player or the http:// URL?

For example, how http://mfile.akamai.com/12912/live/reflector:38843.asx (WESH TV) is converted to mms://a844.l1291238843.c12912.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/844/12912/v0001/reflector:38843

Try opening the media in Windows Media, If allowed you will be able to check the properties

Better yet.. You can simply use wget to get the asx file from the server. This file will contain the mms stream link. Zzxcnet 03:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! AndyLiNY 03:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What I was doing was pulling them up in WMP, then opening the .asx file in \windows\temp with vim.
--Baylink 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The WWL channel 4 live internet feed is DOWN. The staff has vacated the facilities and it seems that their streaming capabilities have failed. Zzxcnet 04:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Was watching the WWL feed when they went down, they switched to a studio in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on the campus of Louisiana State University no information of feed loss, WDSU has apparently switched it operations to WAPT in Jackson, Mississippi, anchors are on live with the stations regular anchors. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This place shows four of the local video feeds, including WWL. AySz88^-^ 17:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Prep: Donation links

We probably ought to start thinking now about how we're going to handle links to donation sites, and the related items. Clearly this is going to be another tsunami class incident; can someone attract an admin about front-paging?
--Baylink 04:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the media has made you BELIEVE this will be "another tsunami class incident." It may not be as bad as the Boogeymen in the news media have tried to make it seem; it's best to wait it out 24 hours or so and THEN see about donations. --Stroker And Hoop 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't see the death toll breaking 100,000 and the US is in far better postion to handle this problem than the goverments of the countries on the reciveing end of the tsunami were. there is also the issue that has been a fair bit of advanced warning.Geni 11:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the big problem is that Geraldo Rivera hasn't gotten laryngitis yet. If you were watching him last night, you'd think that New Orleans was going to be washed off the face of the earth and all the people replaced with zombie corpses that were yanked out of the ground by all the water. --Spanky The Clown 12:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There will still be major crap and a lot of aid will be necessary - mainly to help the refugees who won't exactly be able to go back to New Orleans next week. As to death toll, I can't see it getting anywhere near 100,000, but I can sure see it breaking the current US hurricane record (8,000 deaths from the Galveston hurricane). ~~ N (t/c) 13:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Y'all were right, and I was wrong.  :-} If it had hit head on, we might have lost up into 5 digits; I think we got *insanely* lucky.
--Baylink 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Reformatting

So I've engaged in a major refactoring of the article prior to it making landfall, removing a fair amount of duplicated content and restructing the sections more sensibly. I think it reads much more nicely now. -- Seth Ilys 05:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

To whoever fixed the vandalism, I appreciate it.

Don't mention it. Thats what we do here. Its part of the "Neighborhood Watch", if you will, and because of its current tag will most likely be monitered all night and most of tommarrow. TomStar81 07:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina

Hurricanes are like cats, I swear! They find the one place that absolutly hates them and then charge straight for it. I gotta say, I really feel for all you Louisianans out their, and all you New Orlens people the most. TomStar81 07:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought that all places absolutely hate hurricanes. --Holderca1 15:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't mind them all that much in far western Kentucky. In fact, we could use one; there's a bad drought. Of course, the local opinion might be slightly influenced by hurricanes becoming glorified rainstorms by the time they reach the Purchase. 24.34.190.187 10:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't live in New Orleans and I hate hurricanes. It's true.

BBC News downgrades to 4?

At 0830 BST, BBC News reported Katrina has been downgraded to category 4? Anyone able to substaniate this? dok 07:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is category 4 at the moment, from other news sources, as well as data from Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Center. 135 knots would be category 4. -- KittySaturn 07:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The official NHC advisory put Katrina's sustained winds at 155 mph. Category 5 begins at 156. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Some raw data. Interesting stuff

Sensor data shows swells to 7 feet in the Gulf. NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services

Water heights up 9 feet in Lake Ponchatrain East Bank 1, Norco

Pressures down to 930mb

Pilots Station East, SW Pass , LA

--kradak 09:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

View from the Trenches

Or at least the ones on the flanks. Looks like Kat has made its next landfall on the end of the Missippi Delta. Here in Mobile, its pretty wet and windy, but still only Tropical Storm levels. Shouldn't get toooo bad here, but could if Kat does like Dennis and Ivan and makes a deflection east as it makes landfall. Hope the folks between the Mississippi line and the Texas line make it out okay. Donovan Ravenhull 11:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this wikipedian survived Katrina with mimimal damage here in Mobile, AL, though I can see massive damage in town. Glad I ain't west of here. Donovan Ravenhull 12:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina slams ashore

this is from cnn news website

Hurricane Katrina slams ashore Mississippi may get worst part of storm

Monday, August 29, 2005; Posted: 7:36 a.m. EDT (11:36 GMT)

That's about 70 miles south-southeast of New Orleans and 95 miles south-southwest of Biloxi, Mississippi.

The storm had weakened slightly, but forecasters warned that it still was an "extremely dangerous storm" with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph. Hurricane force winds extend 120 miles from the storm's center, the NHC said.

The storm was moving towards the north at 15 mph.

Forecasters predicted the storm surge could reach 28 feet; the highest levees around New Orleans are 18 feet high.

Hurricane-force winds extend 105 miles from the center of the mammoth storm and tropical storm-force winds extend outward up to 230 miles. It is the most powerful storm to menace the central Gulf Coast in decades.

Hurricane warnings are posted from Morgan City, Louisiana, eastward to the Alabama-Florida state line, including New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain. This means winds of at least 74 mph are expected in the warning area within the next 24 hours.

Isolated tornadoes are also possible Monday across southern portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle, forecasters said.

Federal Emergency Management Agency teams and other emergency teams were in place to move in as soon as the storm was over, FEMA Undersecretary Michael Brown said.

National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield said: "There's certainly a chance it can weaken a bit before it gets to the coast, but unfortunately this is so large and so powerful that it's a little bit like the difference between being run over by an 18-wheeler or a freight train. Neither prospect is good."

Wikipedia Warning

Why are you bothering to post a warning on the article page that basically says "Don't use Wikipedia to determine an appropriate course of action?" Do you really think there are people out there that are stupid and/or gullible enough to try to do that? Sure, the range of the hurricane includes Louisana and Alabama, where indoor plumbing is only an urban legend in some places, and family trees look more like poison ivy plants than family trees, but still, that has to be one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of. Frankly if anyone IS going to follow Wikipedia and use it to determine whether or not they should leave shelter, they deserve to perish in the first place. I mean, that's like saying "Don't read the Wikipedia entry on electricity to gain knowledge on how to work a do-it-yourself job on rewiring your house!" Kinda redundant, don'tcha think? --Spanky The Clown 12:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

call it playing safe. The notice wont be around for long anyway.Geni 12:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia would be getting a lawsuit stating that Wikipedia wasn't up to date with info about Hurricane Katrina. 207.30.145.6 12:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The theory that foolish people deserve to die is cursed. Fool 13:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Apple put "do not eat iPod Shuffle" on their product pages... — ceejayoz ^{★ .com} 19:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the warning is there just to appease the lawyers. I probably would expect that something lik 99.9% of people in the affected area probably aren't even on the internet at all, and probably won't be to even see the page for the next couple of days. Most of them are too busy trying to find safe drinking water, a good hot shower, and food. The internet is the last possible thing these people are worrying about. Although I suppose it's possible that some residents that evacuated to neighboring cities like Baton Rouge or Jackson, MS, are probably searching the internet to help determine when it's safe to go back. Dr. Cash 23:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• And the warning is now gone. I don't know if this was done intentionally, but I just thought I'd let you know. --Titoxd 04:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, not everyone who finds Wikipedia via a google search or friend's link realizes right away how it works--so yeah, someone just a little foolish (not even a lot) could take this as more reliable info than it is. I thought the warning a pretty good idea, actually.

It is a good idea, because some people out there are indeed dumb. Just for a few more hours or days, we should place this notice on top. I added it back. --ThomasK 04:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's daft. Do you see anywhere else with such a silly notice? Dan100 (Talk) 09:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Should also point out that Wikipedia has general "use at your own risk" disclaimers - see the link at the bottom of every page. Dan100 (Talk) 11:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans?

Looks like the worst of it will just miss New Orleans to the East? Evercat 12:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans is pretty much lucky. The worst part of the hurricane is on the east side. New Orleans will be receiving the west side of the hurricane. Obviously, there's still going to be damage and flooding but not as severe if there were hit with the east side of the hurricane. 207.30.145.6 12:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, especially for the eastern part of town which lies in the eyewall. It is not moving very fast so the difference in wind speed (150 mph vs. 135 mph) will not be that noticeable. Plus the storm surge is now more likely to come up as it would be pointing across the I-10 bridge onto Lake Pontchartrain, not over the marshes west of town. CrazyC83 13:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Levee breaches

Unconfirmed reports from WDSU/WAPT say that levees protecting Jefferson Parish from Lake Pontchartrain have been breached. Zzxcnet 14:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm getting news reports off Yahoo! news to that extent; it seems that one of the levees connecting the Mississippi river to something-else-rather has been breached, but I would wait for confirmation before adding that. TomStar81 19:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

CNN Confirms Levy Breach "As the death toll from Hurricane Katrina reaches at least 56, a levee holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain has reportedly sustained a breach two blocks long in the Lakefront area of New Orleans." CNN.com --64.81.67.171 08:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Third Landfall?

Quick question. Did Katrina just make a technical third landfall? My impression is that it crossed the Mississippi Delta and entered Breton Sound, part of the Gulf, and then moved into the Mississippi Sound, a tidal estuary, and is now making landfall near Gulfport. Not that it really matters -- looks like the whole area is blown to smithereans. --Mm35173 14:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe so. Third landfall will still be as a Category 4 hurricane. Now, unless it does the thought-to-be-impossible (but this is the 2005 season, nothing is impossible!) and survives all the way to the Arctic Ocean or far northern Atlantic Ocean and manages to make another landfall, that is it. The Great Lakes don't count (I don't think). CrazyC83 14:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of things are impossible. There is no possibility of anything completely ridiculous like it moving inland across the US and regenerating in the Pacific or something like that. Hurricane Faith however was a tropical system until it hit the Faroe Islands in the passage between Iceland and Great Britain. The system maintained sustained tropical storm-force winds until shortly after landfall in Norway! It degenerated into an extratropical low over northern Russia, above the Arctic Circle and maintained it's identity until it ran out of water near Franz Josef Land, a mere 300 miles from the North Pole!

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Crying Wolf

Hurricane Katrina. What a non event! Yet another example of Americans crying wolf. Winds around 90 - 120 mph. That is nothing, and is commonplace in other parts of the world. Fancy evacuating a whole million people. Losing a day's pay over nothing! One day there will be a serious event, and Americans will not take any notice, as they have heard it all before. This happened with the Tsunami. There were so many Tsunami warnings, that not many took it seriously. It turned out to be a major event, and got very little coverage probably as it did not happen in America. Leistung 16:13, 29 August 2005 (EST)

So what happens when we see the next big hurricane, taking the same path as Katrina, and we ignore it, and then it slams NO, floods the entire town? The rest of the world will look at us and say "DIDN'T YOU SEE THAT COMING!? God, you Americans are so stupid!". I'd rather play it safe and nothing happen, then stick it out an die; but that's just me. Matt 14:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

That hurricane could be weaker that Katrina. A slow-moving Category 3 hurricane is enough to breach the levees... CrazyC83 14:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a tropical storm could do the same. All it has to do is park over NOLA for a week. Thephotoman 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Uhmm. Where are 120 mph winds "common"? "A day's pay"? New Orleans. Is. Going to. Be. Flooded. Many. People. Will. Die. Did you read the NOAA report? ~~ N (t/c) 14:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

And the tsunamis did get plenty of coverage here in the United States. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 14:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet another ignorant European that doesn't know what he's talking about.

As far as ignorance is concerned, I'd rather not start counting...--Stephan Schulz 15:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We were told as Katrina approached that 100,000 people could die! Dreamtime...

We have had serious flooding here over the last week or so (probably unreported in America), with more loss of life than for Katrina. Very few were evacuated. Ceratinly not a million! We do not grandstand here.

Leistung 17:12, 29 August 2005 (EST)

Note the could. Hurricanes are hard to predict, and Katrina slowed down, and, more inportantly, changed direction at the last minute. It could have been a lot worse. The serious flooding in the Alps certainly has been bad, but I very much expect Katrina to cause more than the 40 or so death we've had in the Alps. Moreover, the Alps are comparatively thinly settled, and there was no risk to large population centers like New Orleans. --Stephan Schulz 15:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

And ABC News covered the European flooding every evening, I believe. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 17:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what world you are living in. 90-120 mph winds are not commonplace outside of Tropical Cyclones, Tornadoes and the Arctic/Antarctic. Katrina just now made landfall, how can you say what the loss of life will be? It is rather obvious you have never experienced a major hurricane, nor do you know much about the geography of the New Orleans area. Keep in mind that ~12 hours before landfall, Katrina was the most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico. --Holderca1 15:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll. Chris 15:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This section is useless.

Agreed. But see alt.revisionism --Stephan Schulz 15:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he understands the difference between mph and kph.

To user Leistung. this is clearly not another example of Americans crying wolf and aparently the hurricaine was not very widely reported were you are. You claerly are not familiar with the risks of a hurricaine hitting New Orleans, this has not happened since 1969 and New Oleans lies below sea level, is very vulnerable to flooding and the levees and damns in New Orleans are not expected to withstand the predicted surge and when all is said and done it will most likely be the costliest storm in U.S. history with some estimates that damage could cost as much as 100 billion USD. You also are not well informed as no one in the United States expected the wind to be the problem it is the flooding in the aftermath that is supposed to do damage. The tsunami got weeks worth of coverage in America non-stop and the floods in europe did get significant coverage in the U.S. And as to why more people died in the floods there, ummmm maybe because enough was not done to evacuate. And many predictions with the hurricaine are that more people will be killed than in your floods. You clearly have never been through a hurricaine or significant storm and have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Mac Domhnaill 15:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The doomsday estimates of 100,000 dead assumes that few people evacuate. Realistically, even a Category 5 direct hit on New Orleans that stalls over the city for days would not likely cause numbers that high, as most of the people would be gone. The damage estimates are definitely realistic though - some insurers already estimate insured coastal damage will exceed $30 billion (so total damage at this point would likely be around $65 billion (including south Florida and offshore, but excluding later effects from inland flooding, as insured damage is generally about 50% of total damage). [11] :CrazyC83 16:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course I have experienced windy conditions. Who hasn't? Although the conditions I saw in New Orleans didn't look so bad on my TV. The reporter from CNN was standing in a light raincoat, with a baseball cap, which looked in no danger of being dislodged. The action then quickly moved to somewhere called Biloxi??, I guess where there were some pictures of actual wind. The reporter had located a few tiles blown of a roof, and a bit of spounting loose in some guttering. So much for the "big hit".

Leistung 18:58, 29 August 2005 (EST)

Leistung, do you have a point here about how you think the article should be covered, or are you just in for an ill-informed bash on Americans? If you have nothing useful to contribute this section should be deleted as a waste of server resources and as an anti-troll measure. DreamGuy 17:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Although I haven't seen the CNN coverage this morning, being at work and all, are you sure you weren't watching Miles O'Brien? He is in Baton Rouge, not New Orleans. I didn't see any reporters outside in New Orleans this morning. Speaking of Baton Rouge, Anderson Cooper looked like he was in some pretty intense weather, and from what I can tell, that's not as bad as what they were getting in Gulfport, Mobile, or Biloxi. <rant>A hurricane of any strength is a serious occurrence and doesn't really care what you think about it. Yes, it could be far worse, but people will die, buildings will be destroyed, and flooding will occur. Try to show some compassion.</rant> --timc | Talk 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

EUROPE ROX AMERICA SUX Noname 16:13, 29 August 2005 (EST)

One up for American patriotism.

Leistung 18:03, 29 August 2005 (EST)

This guy is a tool. Check the history--he wrote both comments. Please ignore him. Chris 18:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

He didn't, actually. [12]. But this whole discussion is silly. 129.215.146.60 18:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. But he did attempt to attribute it to a user who has nothing to do with the article. And it is silly. Must stop posting!  ;) Chris 18:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't try to attribute anything to anyone! Not true. I simply changed the Leistung (which was not me) on the comment "EUROPE ROX AMERICA SUX" to Noname, and put up the comment "One up for American patriotism", as this whole section was deleted, and the above comment put in its place. It appeared to me that if you disagree with someone, you simply say the she hates America, call her a European and a troll and then finally delete the whole section. By the way, I am not anti-American, or anyone for that matter. I just think this event is being hyped way too much, and the authorities especially and the media sometimes make a mountain out of a molehill. Bit like the Anthrax hype. The 1906 earthquake in California was to my mind a somewhat larger event, but the coverage was far smaller. Finally, of course I feel sorry for anyone who has died, or has been flooded out. Leistung 08:34, 30 August 2005 (EST)

Looting shown on WDSU?

Based on apparent HAM radio operator's home video driving through New Orleans somehow shown on WDSU before the live stream went offline seemed to indicate looting. One window (and only one window) to a pharmacy was broken, and people carrying bags were walking through the streets. It's not clear how this got on to the station. This video started playing after the WAPT link went down. Zzxcnet 16:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone else who was watching the live stream confirm that this is what they saw? I think this deserves a mention on the article page under recent developments. I do have it archived, in case someone really wants to see the video. Zzxcnet 16:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

CNN just confirmed 20 or 30 people looting a store in New Orleans. -Loren 16:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe I saw this; the view was tinted green, and it seemed to be shot from the dash of somebody's off-roader. It was eerie, although the devastation wasn't as bad as it could have been. The feed ended with a short clip of a bomb disposal robot and then clicked off - I assumed it was commentary-free reportage. There was a family in a house who seemed fairly well-off, but the pharmacy had lots of broken windows, and the people walking in the street didn't seem to have bags to me. There was however a zoom-in shot of a single window on the top floor of a blocky, anonymous building with curtains blowing out, but it looked like storm damage. The whole place seems like a potential magnet for looters, though. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw a video on WBRZ of folks pushing a shopping cart from a store to a house across the street. The announcers said the video was filmed by a mobile news crew, that the store was Winn Dixie. I doubt I'd characterize that as 'widespread looting.' RPellessier | (Talk) 05:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Animals?

Any reports of Animal fatalities or anything to do with the dolphins? --169.244.143.114 18:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, to my knowlage there have been no reports of Animal fatalities or anything to do with the dolphins. TomStar81 19:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I heard reports that said the dolphins at the zoo were put in the swimming pool of the Holiday Inn, as their normal tank is now unusable.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Tracks

Does anyone know where I can find hurricane tracks? Not just the direction they took but satellite images of them developing as they advance to the U.S., I have been searching but unable to find anyplace that has this.

66.176.9.197 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Abel

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane http://vortex.plymouth.edu/tropical.html Try those two. The first gives the hurricane database and the hurricanes' tracks. The second one gives satellite imagery for the storms' lifetime, but only from 1998-2005.

The second really helps but what I was looking for was a website that puts together all the images into an animation you know, showing the slow development of depression to tropical storm to hurricane. Thanks though. 66.176.9.197 19:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Abel

Format issue

Under the recent developments area, the picture is overlapping the prior text in history for firefox for me. Anyone know how to fix this?

3rd most intense in the USA?

I don't have figures on what the storms were at landfall, but obviously Camille and Labor Day were 1 and 2 - but was Katrina's 918mb more intense than Andrew or Ivan at landfall? --Golbez 19:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I made this box and just pasted it to the historical analysis section, but I cannot get any text to wrap it's side. If anyone can fix it so the section's paragraphs align up against it, that'd be great. 71.32.199.15 20:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

TABLE - USA MOST INTENSE HURRICANES

Top four most intense hurricanes in recorded history
Atlantic basin				Landfall U.S.
Rank	Hurricane	Year	Pressure	Rank	Hurricane	Year	Pressure
1	Gilbert	1988	888 mb	1	Labor Day	1935	892 mb
2	Labor Day	1935	892 mb	2	Camille	1969	909 mb
3	Allen	1980	899 mb	3	Katrina	2005	918 mb
4	Katrina	2005	902 mb	4	Andrew	1992	922 mb
Source: The Weather Channel				Source: National Hurricane Center

Does the Atlantic Basin include the Gulf of Mexico? If not, then Katrina should not rank that high on the Atlantic Basin list. It was only a category 1 when it hit Florida. It was never more than a Category 1 until it left the Atlantic Ocean and entered the gulf. Johntex 20:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question. I would say yes, for now, since the Weather Channel source said so. But if anyone can find something that contradicts it, perhaps we should change it. I am pretty sure the Weather Channel is right though, even hurricanes that form in the Gulf become part of the Atlantic hurricane season. 71.32.199.15 20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you follow the link given to the Weather Channel, it goes to a blog where the author is talking about big hurricanes. It is not completely clear to me that the ones he mentions are definitively the biggest. In other words, he could just be picking a few examples, not all examples. The NOAA information is actually a table of hurricanes, so that does look more definitive. Although their table goes to 2004 so obviously does not list Katrina. If we use the table, we should be clear that the data used information from NOAA, as opposed to NOAA making a ranking of this particicular hurricane. Johntex 20:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

On air they mentioned them as the biggest, but I will try to find another source to verify them. I am not quite sure what you mean by NOAA, "not making the ranking", it was 918 mb at landfall, isn't that the end of the story? 71.32.199.15 20:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I mean that Katrina did not "make NOAA's ranking" simply because the table was created before Katrina. I think it is likely that NOAA, when they come out with a new ranking at some point in the future, would list Katrina where your table does. However, until NOAA says where Katrina ranks, we are putting words in their mouth to determine Katrina's rank ourselves and attribute the source as NOAA. We have to steer clear of original research. Johntex 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane intensity is soley based on pressure. NOAA said that Katrina's pressure at landfall was 918, thus according to NOAA it is the third most intense. While it may be true that they don't list it as of yet, they do say hurricane intesnity is based on pressure and according to their table that would by logic make Katrina the third most intense. "What have been the most intense hurricanes to strike the United States? Hurricanes are ranked by estimated central pressure at time of landfall." And about the Gulf question above. "Statistics on tropical storm and hurricane activity in the North Atlantic Ocean (which includes the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea)" Source: NOAA 71.32.199.15 20:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

And we can also be sure of the North Atlantic category, thus not original research. "(5) What were the strongest and weakest hurricanes? In terms of central pressure (and probably winds), the strongest observed hurricane in the Atlantic basin was Gilbert in 1988 with a pressure of 888 millibars in the northwest Caribbean. The 1935 Labor Day hurricane in the Florida Keys, with a pressure of 892 millibars, was the most intense hurricane to strike the United States." And I saw the other two: Katrina and Allen ranked on television. 71.32.199.15 20:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks 71. That's good persuasive data. Johntex 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• BTW, I've done some web surfing and Atlantic Basin seems to be synonymous with Atlantic Ocean, which is defined by Wikipedia to include the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, North Sea, Labrador Sea, Baltic Sea, and Norwegian-Greenland Sea. Johntex 21:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

When they say "Atlantic Basin", they don't mean "Atlantic Ocean" - they mean, as opposed to the East Pacific Basin, the West Pacific Basin, the Indian Ocean Basin, etc. Atlantic hurricane basin includes Gulf and Caribbean. --Golbez 21:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Golbez, can you find a good source for that statement? I find some sites using the two terms (Atlantic Basin) and (Atlantic Ocean) interchangeably, while others like this one [13] seem to say the Atlantic Basin is a subset of the Atlantic Ocean. Johntex 21:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Basin in a general term is all of the water that drains into that particular body of water. For example, the Mississippi River basin includes the Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee rivers, ect... The Atlantic Ocean basin or Atlantic Basin includes the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, North Sea, Labrador Sea, Baltic Sea, Norwegian Sea, and Greenland Sea. --Holderca1 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi Holderca1 - So you are saying the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Basin are the same thing? Johntex 22:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That depends on what definition you use, some refer to the Atlantic Ocean as only the main body of water and don't include the attached gulfs and seas, others do include those as part of the Atlantic Ocean. Personnaly I do not consider the Gulf of Mexico or Caribbean Sea as part of the Atlantic Ocean, but I do consider them part of the Atlantic Basin. --Holderca1 22:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your definition seems logical to me. If it is correct, then we have defined Atlantic Ocean too broadly over at that article. Johntex 22:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Amphibians

Assuming User:Infrogmation is amphibious, he should be okay, right?

Ref for CN rail service suspension

This didn't seem to fit into any of the existing reference sections on the article, so here's the citation for the CN data that I just added:

• Canadian National (August 29 2005), State of the Railroad. Retrieved August 29 2005.

slambo 20:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

For the Amtrak schedule changes:

• Amtrak (August 29 2005), Service Alert: City of New Orleans, Crescent, Sunset Limited - Revised Service Due to Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved August 29 2005.

slambo 20:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Postponement of MTV awards, a little irrelevant?

Mentioning the postponement of the MTV music awards in the same sentence as saying that nine people died seems a little in bad taste. It's not even like they cancelled the awards ceremony or anything. It still went ahead, and it seems to me that this really has no relevance to the central story of hurricane Katrina. I think this line should be removed, anyone else agree?

I agree, although I'll admit I thought it was somewhat hilarious when I first read it. Sarge Baldy 20:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(note - proposal to remove the line was by User:Kbradnam). I don't mind if the sentence is split apart to avoid talking deaths and music awards in the same sentence, but I do think the information should stay in the article. It was, after all, one of the oft-cited effects of the storm. Johntex 20:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know how much the MTV Video Awards were 'postponed' by? Would 'delayed' be a better choice of word? Nod 21:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(Above post actaully by User:Kbradnam). I can't find a source at the moment, but I think only prelude events were cancelled or postponed. I think the ceremony went on as scheduled. Johntex 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Even mentioning the MTV music awards at all is completely irrelevent and insulting... come on, let's get priorities straight here. DreamGuy 21:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it's noteworthy. However, it should be in its own paragraph, along with any other less-than-important effects. ~~ N (t/c) 22:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems quite tasteless. --Titoxd 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It happened. It's notable. Taste isn't really an issue. It definitely should be out of the lead section, though. ~~ N (t/c) 22:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That's what I meant. It was too prominent. But that has been fixed now. Thanks. --Titoxd 22:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I'm happy that it has been moved, it still can be read amibiguously in that someone might think that the event was cancelled until a later date. 'Postponed' is a bit ambiguous as it could mean minutes or months. What actually happened? I know the ceremony went ahead. If the whole awards ceremony ran on time with a few minor cancellations of guests or post-award parties, then I think that is not significant enough for this sentence to still be retained within the article. Did anyone who watched the MTV awards notice any commentry about things being resheduled or reorganised? Nod 23:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The awards were scheduled for August 24, they didn't happen until August 28 because Katrin made landfall at Miami. Hellohowareyou 00:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim has been deleted citing this article. ~~ N (t/c) 00:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Preliminary events and parties were cancelled, but the award show itself was not cancelled or postponed. [14], [15]' [16] Johntex 01:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please use edit summary.

Please use edit summary to describe the additions or changes. Thank you. --Vsion 21:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Article Bloat

At this point there is so much information, repeated constantly as well as irreleveant information (including a long description of Hurricaine Betsy) that the article is starting to lose its usefulness. I wewnt through and removed all the duplicate info, but it was restored. Please do not leave duplicate info. You aren't helping anyone by making it harder to get a clear and concise description of events, both current and recent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.181.35 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC).

• The thing is, the article here is not just a concise description of events. It is an encyclopedia article, which deals with the history, effects, and other things related to the storm that you won't see on the news. The concise description of events is left to Wikinews. --Titoxd 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention, due to the nature of this storm, this requires a HUGE article. This is an unprecedented situation here! CrazyC83 22:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What? Unprecedented? Bigger than Ben Hur?? Katrina is getting way too much attention. Is it far more serious than the 1918 Spanish Flu or the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake?? Have a look at the articles. There is more on Katrina than both of these combined. Leistung 09:14, 30 August 2005 (EST)

All things in time. It will shrink naturally as needs dictate. But right now, the volume of information outweighs the need to trim it. Deleting information now, unless it's blatantly duplicated, is highly counter productive. --Golbez 22:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

For example, the section on Risk to New Orleans could largely be moved to a separate article linked to New Orleans. The risk doesn't pass with Katrina.--Kbk 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews far behind

Wikinews's main headline is still "New Orleans announces mandatory evacuation"; this article seems far more current. Think that's just a function of more contributors on WP? ~~ N (t/c) 22:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid that the prominence of Wikipedia makes it more prone for active Wiki-news-editors to come here instead of Wikinews. But that's something good in a way. --Titoxd 23:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I straightened out the intro somewhat in order to reduce awkwardness and improve the summary nature of the introductory paragraph, but I know it still needs more work. Jpers36 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links

The link to Metroblogging New Orleans is consistently being removed from the External links section even though it's a valid source. There's some wikipedians who instantly delete any link to a blog assuming it's inaccurate - I won't get into that here but this link in particular is being sourced by major news sources outside of the US [17] and I know of the national news papers currently writing stories quoting the site. If a link to a local TV broadcast is valid why isn't a link to a local website where the people are talking about what is going on? This isn't some personal blog where people are writing about their feelings and their kittens, it's a city focused blog writing about news on the local level and so far today has been far more up to date than many other sources which are linked without question. Sean Bonner 00:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

If it's being used as a 'source' it should be cited not external linked. No one is making the argument that it's inaccurate (thought they could, it appears to contain a lot of conflicting information), but rater the external links section isn't the place to link to news sites. The majority of other links are mostly authortative information sources, and not news sites. 24.165.233.150 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth to the audience out there, I'm sure that Sean's motivations are pure, but I do think he should have mentioned the potential personal interest he has in this matter: He runs metroblogging.com, and presumably benefits directly from the income from the advertising there. 24.165.233.150 01:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't benefit directly from it. All income from ads goes back into the project, which is entirely run by volunteers - including myself. I also don't like the assumption that I'm hiding my relationship with metroblogging, it's right on my user page here on wikipedia and all over metroblogging and my own personal sites. Sean Bonner 04:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of pissing a few people off, I am putting the link back in: I've read though some of it, and I believe it provides useful information about the conditions in the area. I won't start an edit war about it, but I think it ought to be in there.
--Baylink 02:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Why would we link that site and not CNN, NBC, etc? Wikipedia isn't a news link farm, so a bunch of links to news sites really isn't what we need.Gmaxwell 02:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

<sigh> I should think that would be clear: a) everyone knows where to find CNN and NBC, and b) they're not *there*. When something like *this* is going on, yeah, we sort of *are* a news link farm. No, I wouldn't expect it to survive the Current Events tag, but it *is* useful *now*. And that's not really germane to the issue of how you handled it, anyway.
--Baylink 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

How I handled it? I wasn't even the first to remove the link and it has been removed by several other editors, most likely because it just doesn't belong! Look at the links there, they are to government websites.. the red cross, NOAA weather pages... none of them are news sites. Gmaxwell 02:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell, clearly, disagrees, and can't be bothered to be polite in his summary comment. Never mind; no reason to include *useful* links here, clearly.
--Baylink 02:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I apologies for being somewhat sharp with my edit summary (as much as calling the link spam can be considered as such), but I thought it was readded by Sean for the umpenteenth time and not by someone else. Gmaxwell 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm completely up for, and welcoming the discussion about where the link fits best, if it's better suited for some other section of the page I have no problem with that but simply removing it because it's a blog is stupid. It's releavent info. Sean Bonner 04:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've explained to you multiple times that it isn't being removed simply because its a blog, and I just don't know how to make it any more clear. There isn't a basis for us to include that particular site and not include links to a hundred other current events sites. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. 24.165.233.150 12:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia award?

Considering the circumstances and the amount of vandals that have come, this has to be one of the most organized and best maintained article sites I have ever seen for a current event. Truly remarkable. This sets the standard for hurricane pages, and even for current events as a whole! CrazyC83 01:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Aw... <kick> <shuffle> Thanks.  :-)
--Baylink 02:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Almost makes seeing the Goatse pic in ASCII form three times last night worth it ;) -Loren 05:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I too want to compliment you people for such a good and factual report. I'm watching this page... and the discussion too :) bsod 02:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, crap. Don't watch the Talk page... :-)
--Baylink 03:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There is. I, Titoxd, award the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar to all those who have helped maintain this article clean from vandalism and junk. 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Global warming article link?

I posted an external link to this article, Time Magazine: Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?, which was later removed by 24.165.233.150, with the comment, "global warming stuff doesn't belong in this article, try the article on hurricanes..." (here's the diff). I disagree, as the Time article specifically addresses this particular hurricane. I was under the impression that there was an interest in having such information included, per the earlier discussion above. I would like to avoid a dispute on this point, so I would like to know what the consensus of the community is as to whether this external link should be included. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing special about this hurricane related to global warming. Material about how overactive this season has been, or on what causes hurricanes in general really should go into the main hurricane article or into the article on the season... If someone is interested in the global warming angle, they'll also be interested in all the information we provide on why this season is more active than others. If there is something special about global warming and *this* storm that I'm missing, then it should be discussed in the text, not just tossed out as an external link. Gmaxwell 03:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:BD2412 and earlier comments that it should be here. This hurricane being a particularly devastating one and people are talking about the link in general, so no reason to not have it there. Saying it belongs on the main hurricane page is also true, but not an argument for it not being here. DreamGuy 05:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well I managed to mostly sway BD, checkout his talk page and mine. After looking into the matter more indepth I also object to the link because it appears to be random speculation by some journalist which is not tied back to any verifyable research. 24.165.233.150 06:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Harrison MS deaths

WDSU has just reported that the Harrison County, MS EOC has just reported 50 storm-related deaths.
--Baylink 03:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

While I can believe that number, we should wait for more confirmation - they heavily overestimated with Charley ("dozens" reported dead in Punta Gorda, in reality less than 10 died there). CrazyC83 03:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is now widely reported. For now, they should be listed as direct deaths unless an indirect cause is mentioned (i.e. building fire). CrazyC83 03:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Fatality charts

Is there a better way to illustrate the chart of fatalities by state? An "inland" death chart listing (as of now) the single death in Georgia, and separated from the totals of Miss., La., Ala., and Fla. Seems to me these charts should be merged, but it wouldn't be appropriate under only coastal or inland headings. Thoughts? --Twigboy 03:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The inland chart will likely grow as deaths from Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New York and Ontario, among other states/provinces are eventually added... after all, Katrina has only just started affecting the inland areas. The listings will eventually grow. CrazyC83 03:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but my point is that the distinction between coastal/inland fatalities seems to be arbitrary. For example, Hinds County, MS appears to be more than 100 miles inland, yet it's listed as "coastal." Is it coastal just because it's in a state that has a Gulf coast? --Twigboy 03:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Coastal states here are MS, AL, LA and FL - the states directly affected from the coastal impact. It is easiest to keep the states together (so, even if it happens in, say, Huntsville AL, it will go in the coastal list under Alabama). Inland states(/provinces) are everything else. CrazyC83 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There should be a table that present the total tally, coastal and inland. How about a new section call "Summary on casualities", just before the two sections? --Vsion 04:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cnn reported from AP 55 people dead. Thats a good enough source to put that number in the artilce. Also we should metion it has now become one of the legendary hurricanes. Such as besty, camille, hugo, Andrew.

I just combined the sections and renamed it "Impact by region". It will also show a combined death toll. CrazyC83 04:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew

• Anyone else notice a striking similarity in the path of Andrew to Katrina's? I thought Katrina was following a strange path until I saw Andrew. Through lower Florida, across the Gulf, through Louisiana, and back up towards the Northeast. Staxringold 05:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

A range of IPs has been inserting random characters in words all over the article. Someone, please report this "Sandbox vandal" to WP:VIP, since it's almost impossible to do it myself, trying to keep up with the vandal.

Kind regards, Titoxd 05:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I tossed a variety of IP addresses over there. Hopefully they aren't AOL ones, because if they are, blocking won't help.DreamGuy 05:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it sure has been a lot quieter now. Thank you very much! --Titoxd 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

relevant link?

I reverted an edit adding this link: [18]. I don't object to having it in the article, but I'm unsure if it should be there. What do you people think? --Titoxd 05:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Not relevant enough. Would be fine in an article on "New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" if that one is ever written, but not here. Shanes 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

shrug, I added it I thought it was quite relevant. This is why:

New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces funding cuts in 2006

From the article: "The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now." This article addresses the future preparedness of the New Orleans to Hurricanes like Katrina. It could be added to future predictions, or a section to reaction to the disaster.

Levee break

CNN is reporting there is a two block wide breach in the 17th St Canal levee. Lake Pontchartrain is pouring into Orleans Parish. Water around Tulane University Hospital is rising one inch every minute. Won't put in article until corroborated online. --Golbez 06:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

CNN has just reported it again, statement from the Army Corps of Engineers on the breach is expected within the next two hours. Also reported here (second article down): [19]-Loren 07:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Per CNN 0302 CDT: Hospital evacuations temporarily placed on hold. Army Corps of Engineers currently in meeting discussing levee breach. -Loren 08:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

200 ft break confirmed by NOFD officials. -Loren 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

moved section on "Previous Prediction"

I moved the section on "Previous Prediction" to Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans. I feel this is the most suitable section to be transfered. Ok? --Vsion 07:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Widespread looting?

The article says "Since Lousiana and Mississippi is an economically depressed area, widespread looting has been reported in hurricane stricken areas." I don't know if I should take this out as I haven't heard of widespread looting, only incidents, and I haven't heard of Louisiana and Missisppi being 'economically depressed.' I don't know, I may be wrong here, hence the posting. 129.110.199.227 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the level of economic depression in Louisiana, but I dropped the "since" word, as I believe looting can occur everywhere, given the "right" circumstances. But, yeah, maybe we should just drop the whole statement about economic depressed area. Especially if it's not even true.... Shanes 07:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take out the economically depressed bit, and the widespread bit, and just put 'incidents of looting.' At the very worst, it means the same thing anyway, just more general. Dafrito 07:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I think I beat you too it ;-). Shanes 07:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

*cries.* Dafrito 08:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought looters were shot on sight in the US. So looting is very unlikely. As for economically depressed, the average person gets $27000 per year in Louisiana. Easy to live on that for a family of, say 6 (6x$27000)! Leistung 10:07, 30 August 2005 (EST)

I don't think you and I are talking about the same US. Perhaps the United States of Mexico, but not the United States of America. Also, average income is the mean, not the median. Where income inequality is significant, like Louisiana (and the USA in general), the mean will be far higher than the median. A more typical family earns $27000 per year total. 24.34.190.187 10:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina in S. Illinois and the Purchase?

This section is still on the page: "Katrina may come close to the Ohio River Valley, even scraping southern Illinois, causing storms to rise from the remnants that are left behind." The forecast track doesn't have it coming anywhere near there, instead crossing the Kentucky line around Hopkinsville and heading into Indiana or Ohio. It hasn't been forecast to go through the Purchase or Illinois to my knowledge (if it does, good, we need the rain) - flood watches don't even cover any county north or west of Graves.

Also, is it true that TVA is opening spillways? I heard (as of Sunday) the rivers were low enough to impede barge traffic. 24.34.190.187 10:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro inconsistency

From the intro, last para:

.... and 80% of New Orleans is said to be under water. Currently 750,000 people are without power in the New Orleans area, and it may be several weeks before power is restored. The parts of the city with the worst flooding were in the east, where the storm was most severe. Roughly 40% of the city is under water...

I'm thinking it's one or the other, personally... J.K. 10:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the 40% and put the 25 foot deep with the eighty percent. That's coming from an interview with the New Orleans mayor, though, for full disclosure, he said "The city of New Orleans is in a state of devastation. We probably have 80 percent of our city underwater. With some sections of our city, the water is as deep as 20 feet." So I guess we should just quote that directly, since he said probably, too. Dafrito 11:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of the quote, but can you find a cite? J.K. 11:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

CNN cites it here, I believe. [20] Fifth paragraph or so. Dafrito 11:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Reuters cites the quote here, too, [21] Dafrito 11:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, here's the video of the interview. [22] Dafrito 11:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.uscg.mil/leadership/news/archive/fall05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928065227/http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3775450 to http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3775450
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak%2Fam2Copy%2FSimple_Copy_Popup&c=am2Copy&cid=1093554014709
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150831135843/http://www.dhh.state.la.us/assets/docs/katrina/deceasedreports/KatrinaDeaths_082008.pdf to http://www.dhh.state.la.us/assets/docs/katrina/deceasedreports/KatrinaDeaths_082008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100720121507/http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/06/27/1555968/spill-colors-fabric-of-gulf-coastal.html to http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/06/27/1555968/spill-colors-fabric-of-gulf-coastal.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-4%2F113005097377980.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051023070941/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002520986_katmyth26.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002520986_katmyth26.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928025331/http://www.governorbarbour.com/Recovery/news/2006/jan/information.html to http://www.governorbarbour.com/Recovery/news/2006/jan/information.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=3782559
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33117_20051018.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051017133300/http://www.marshall.edu/cber/research/katrina/Katrina-Estimates.pdf to http://www.marshall.edu/cber/research/katrina/Katrina-Estimates.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707170953/http://katrina.lsu.edu/downloads/research/NOLAPopEstimate.pdf to http://katrina.lsu.edu/downloads/research/NOLAPopEstimate.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141119182853/http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4163081.html to http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4163081.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1955
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309165717/http://www.cwsworkshop.org/katrinareader/node/162 to http://www.cwsworkshop.org/katrinareader/node/162
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C168978%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121200321/http://www.redcross.org/images/pdfs/Katrina_OneYearReport.pdf to http://www.redcross.org/images/pdfs/Katrina_OneYearReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825084458/http://www.lacpr.usace.army.mil/ to http://www.lacpr.usace.army.mil/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221000944/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/606925 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/606925
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714152101/http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/evacinfo/stateevacrtes.htm to http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/evacinfo/stateevacrtes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001220638/http://www.al.com/mobileregister/pdf/register083105a.pdf to http://www.al.com/mobileregister/pdf/register083105a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219105454/http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf to http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701215949/http://www.nola.com/hurricane/katrina/stories/083005_a15_hotels.html to http://www.nola.com/hurricane/katrina/stories/083005_a15_hotels.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510213820/http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0222.htm to http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0222.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126001158/http://www.mms.gov/ to http://www.mms.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521031743/http://documents.insuranceinstitute.ca/english/localchapters/manitoba/BusinessInterruptionFormIIMA.pdf to http://documents.insuranceinstitute.ca/english/localchapters/manitoba/BusinessInterruptionFormIIMA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027034249/http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5916 to http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5916
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314143006/http://www.spike.com/video-clips/gmidjv/geraldo-rivera-shepard-smith-unleashed to http://www.spike.com/video-clips/gmidjv/geraldo-rivera-shepard-smith-unleashed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720085133/http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050913glaser/ to http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050913glaser/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of government response

Hello. I am VERY new to Wikipedia, and while researching an unrelated topic I found this postmortem analysis of the apparent interconnected dysfunctions among government, private sector and even individuals from a person inside FEMA during the Katrina period. I do not know if it meets criteria for inclusion, and would prefer to let an experienced editor judge. https://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/newsletter/crisis-manager-080831.html#cmu CyndiMcIncheese (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@CyndiMcIncheese: I think you may be looking for the page Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @MarioProtIV:! CyndiMcIncheese (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Hello all. User:MarioProtIV has modified the lead in a way I find highly unencyclopedic. On 29 October 2016 he changed it from:

Hurricane Katrina was the eleventh named storm and fifth hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. It was the costliest natural disaster, as well as one of the five deadliest hurricanes, in the history of the United States.

to:

Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster, as well as one of the five deadliest hurricanes, in the history of the United States.

He removed a key phrase which described the article's subject, instead giving preeminence to the subject's historical importance. This is wrong for an encyclopedia: You should start by the describing what the subject actually is before expounding its significance.

He did this again twice on 26 August 2017 and 27 August 2017 on my own edits:

This:

Hurricane Katrina was a tropical cyclone that hit the southeastern coast of the United States in August 2005. It was the costliest natural disaster and one of the five deadliest hurricanes in the country's history.

became:

Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster and one of the five deadliest hurricanes in the history of the United States.

Anyone else agree the previous versions are better for an encyclopedia? Thanks. Pristino (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What happened to this page?

When I see the top of this page, it says it was a "former featured article". Now, it seems to have fallen to C-class. May I ask - what happened? Why has it declined so much? Hdjensofjfnen (UTC) 17:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Harvey happened. It now supposedly rivals or even beats Katrina in sheer damage. Caesar Panda I (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how it was unfeatured in 2010, I think the problems predated Harvey by a few years. --Golbez (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210827/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/24/35204.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/24/35204.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Harvey comparison using recent estimate and adjusting for inflation

Using recent figures, Hurricane Harvey appears to have caused more dollars of damage than Hurricane Katrina, but when adjusting for inflation, it seems that Hurricane Katrina caused more damage (and even more when adjusting for CPI). This may be noteworthy. Master of Time (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Information

Second sentence into the article states the devastation of Gulfport. The information is obviously misplaced, and for the sake of the article it would be appreciated if this good piece of information is relocated. Benisawesome0101 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

Katrina and Harvey are NOT tied. One article said Katrina's cost was $160 billion (that's $35 billion more than $125 billion). So, could you please fix sentences about Harvey and Katrina and this chart? Please. 2601:401:C400:357:DD19:959:2361:F71D (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Spintendo      00:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: The IP editor basically wants to change the way we calculate the damages on Wikipedia after the National Hurricane Centre released an updated report on the costliest tropical cyclones. The IP would rather us use the inflation based total for Katrina and call it the costliest TC on record rather than the non-inflated version which says that Harvey and Katrina are tied. Both have their flaws but for now WPTC prefers using the non-inflated values since it’s less OR and more stable.Jason Rees (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• It is utter nonsense and highly misleading to compare numbers not adjusted for inflation. What's the purpose of this this original research in the article?--TMCk (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not utter nonsense or original research and is sourced back to the National Hurricane Center, stating that the damage costs for both tropical cyclones are $125 Billion.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I also note that on Page 9 of this report on Harvey, NHC also compares numbers not adjusted for inflation and even mentions that Katrina and Harvey are tied.Jason Rees (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So use the inflated version, not the non-inflated version. Wikipedia is wrong. Please let Katrina be the costliest tropical cyclone at $160 billion, and not be tied with Harvey at $125 billion. Please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.8.129 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Not without the tropical cyclone project deciding to use inflated values for all tropical cyclone damages, which I don't think is going to happen since the inflated values would generally not be able to be sourced.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration (the proposal to switch from the already existing non inflation-based comparison to an inflation-based one) before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. A WikiProject talk page discussion on this topic from 11 years ago, shown here explains the problems inherent in using inflation calculations. Spintendo      23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I need you guys to find the article that's not on Wikipedia that says Katrina's cost is $160 billion in damage. Please.

The burden is on you to find sources to support the change you want to make. Deli nk (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We have already found the article and linked to it above. It states that Katrina's damages were $160 billion, after adjusting for inflation, which is something per convention we do not do with damage totals on Wikipedia. If you wish to change this then you can form open a discussion to try and change this, but it would require finding sources for all inflation worldwide.Jason Rees (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

Add another, smaller section towards the end about the Rise Against 2011 song "Help Is On the Way", a song that describes Katrina and the government's alleged neglect to help rescue black families in New Orleans, hence the title "Help Is On the Way"- the government's empty promise. It is a very impactful song and I feel it deserves recognition on this page. SunshinyComet (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not how the edit request works - you have to say what you want in the article, the specific text. What this is is just a discussion of what should be there. And maybe it should be, but there's nothing actionable in this request yet. --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Cost for Katrina

I want Katrina's cost to be $160 billion instead of $125 billion, because I don’t want a tie, and it's better to use the inflated version instead. Listen to me, and could you please fix the cost of Katrina to $160 billion? Please. Hello Inflated Version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:258B:1311:DA3F:FA1A (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your wants are not what Wikipedia needs. ChowKam2002 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We have told you time and time again that we are not using the inflated version, no matter how many times you disrupt Wikipedia and beg us to use it for your own needs.Jason Rees (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

Should this page be unlocked since it's been a very long time? 207.172.180.75 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. It was put indefinitely under semi-protection for excessive vandalism in 2010, so 5 years out from the hurricane there were still issues with vandalism. Feel free to re-open this request if you have a specific edit in mind, register an account and edit it yourself, or request a decrease in the protection level Cannolis (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

KATRINA IS NOW OFFICIALLY THE SECOND DEADLIEST HURRICANE IN UNITED STATE'S HISTORY. HURRICANE MARIA, BEING THE FIRST, WHERE 2,975 UNITED STATES CITIZENS LOST THEIR LIVES. 71.43.37.242 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph says it made landfall in Louisiana and Florida. Did it straddle Mississippi? Oh, wait much, much further down it says that the worst quadrant made landfall in Mississippi. I suppose I should be grateful that you at least didn't call it Landmass like the Weather Channel tend to do. GeneoSCAD (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 AUG 2019

Hello. I'm requesting that we change the first sentence in the lede to mention that Katrina did not make landfall as a Category 5. Some people read on further into the article, but you'd be surprised how many skim and only read the lede paragraph. Some peoplencan mislead into thinking Katrina was a. Category 5 when it made landfall. Thanks. 2601:640:8880:3304:7D3C:1732:D3BB:9531 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I think it's fine as is. It doesn't say that it made landfall as a category 5 hurricane. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

• Request one Fatal engineering flaws didn't exactly cause the flooding: without the engineering flaws, the flooding wouldn't have happened, but they'd been present for a long time without the flooding happening before. (The storm "caused" the flooding, and engineering flaws failed to keep it from happening.) Please change the second sentence to Subsequent flooding, enabled by fatal engineering flaws.
• Request two Near the end of the introduction, please change "criticisms" to "criticism" because this word doesn't normally get pluralized.

Thank you. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done:

• Just because the engineering flaws didn't cause flooding before Katrina doesn't mean that it was those flaws working which prevented earlier flooding. By that same logic, if we're to completely remove the flaws from blame for not working we could also remove the flaws from blame for working -- in which case it could be said that any non-flooding before Katrina was also caused by the storm. In other words, designating the storm as the main cause of something goes both ways -- whether it flooded or not. But blame and/or causation is not intuitively assigned in that manner. It's usually ascribed to that which is directly controllable by humans -- such that when a plane crashes, the cause is not placed upon the laws of gravity, but rather, upon the human actions or inaction's -- directly or indirectly -- which caused it. In this case, the prose is focusing on the ramifications of the poorly-designed engineering which enabled the flooding. The storm is held relatively blameless in that respect because -- as Taylor Swift says, "haters gonna hate" -- here too, a "storms gonna storm."
• Criticisms is the appropriate plural form for criticism. However, the word 'widespread' at the beginning of that sentence seemed to negate the need to place the subsequent words into plural form. Thus, the plural form was changed to the singular/infinitive form in that sentence. If other editors object to this, they are free to revert as necessary, or contact me and I will revert the change. Thank you!  Spintendo  09:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Request fix to Date Error

hi, there seems to be an error in the paragraph about the effects on Cuba. the section says "on the 29th of august" despite citing an article dated the 28th. Unless clairvoyance has secretly been mastered by AFP reporters, I suggest this date should be fixed.

92.40.169.68 (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)e man

Agreed, and the source mentions this happening on "Sunday", which according to my calendar means the 28th.  Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Where Katrina made landfall

Katrina didn't actually hit New Orleans the way that it's made out to have. The eye of the storm actually made landfall in Ocean Springs, MS. New Orleans got the western edge of the storm, causing the levees to break and that is what flooded the city. Fyrefly24 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an edit request? WP:NOTFORUM United States Man (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)