[Alberta's Child]

These were two very different hurricanes. Sandy was a Category 1 but made landfall with a very high storm surge that was magnified by a higher-than-normal high tide during the full moon. The Category 1 definition was based on sustained wind speeds, and nothing else. The situation here is bad because the Northeast has a lot of old hardwood trees, and even a Category 1 knocks a lot of those trees down.

Katrina's most devastating impact -- at least in New Orleans -- had nothing to do with wind or a storm surge. It was rainfall that inundated New Orleans, which explains why the city became a disaster zone long after the storm had passed. New Orleans was flooded by rain that fell far to the north in places like nothern Lousiana and Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. -- and then drained down the Mississippi River over the course of several days.

[hotshu]

Sorry AC, your impression that the flooding in NOLA was due to rain is incorrect. There was indeed a storm surge that accompanied Katrina’s landfall. As someone earlier noted, the flooding in the city was due to over topped, then failed levees.

The catastrophic damage in the outlying parishes and across Mississippi and Alabama had nothing to do with rain. It was all wind and storm surge. 300 foot long casinos were lifted across Hwy. 90. Sections of bridges on I-10 across the Lake and at Pascagoula were washed out as were the Hwy. 90 bridges at Pass Christian and at Biloxi. All of these bridges were 14 to 16 feet above sea level. Rain did not cause that.

My parents live approximately six miles north of the Gulf and over two miles east of Lake Ponchartrain at an eight foot elevation and over thirty miles from the Mississippi River. They had four and a half feet of water in their house. Rain did not cause that.

[Romulus]

You have no clue what you’re talking about. That is some pretty extreme myth making. Makes you look silly, I have to say.