Just wanted to give major advance notice due to the upcoming holiday weekend about a possible major hurricane that could affect the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast regions this upcoming holiday weekend. More details will be posted as they become clear, but everyone in the below areas should be on the lookout:

Hmm... still a Tropical Storm, but if it waltzes across the nice warm Gulf it will almost certainly become a full-blown Hurricane. I imagine New Orleans is keeping a wary eye on this storm. Particularly lousy timing, too.

This track looks alarmingly familiar...

As long as this doesn't sever the connection to the WoW servers, my vacation will be fine.

I do need to work on my car though.

Hopin it doesn't come up the coast.

That's the hardest I've laughed today...

I aim to please. ... most times.

Well, it was a hurricane before it hit Haiti, so chances are that it probably might just reclaim that status before hitting th Gulf Coast.

they say it will be a Cat 3 at least for where ever it hits

Okay, now that the projected path (which im not in 100% agreement with) show Gustav headed directly for New Orleans/LA, I keep seeing these blog posts, youtube videos and news reports about Hurricane Katrina in '05. FYI folks, Katrina did very little damage to N.O., it was the failure of the levees. Stop whining about "Katrina did this" or "Katrina did that", Hurricane Katrina kicked the crap out of Miss. more than LA. Just because the levees were not built to withstand the volume of water within Lake Pontchartrain does not mean that anyone in N.O. was a victim of a hurricane. Label it as it should be, victim of failed levees. Why? Well, take your pick: 1. Failed levee construction. 2. Failed inspections. or both. Now if Gustav does a direct hit on N.O. THEN people can cry about being a "Hurricane" victim. I didn't hear Miss. whining and crying when Katrina hit them. Truth just got told, sorry if anyone doesn't like it.

This is the third thread about this storm. Why?

Um, I have to disagree. The media focused on New Orleans, that's why no one heard anything from other places. Just because they didn't get hit "head on" doesn't mean they didn't get hit by the hurricane. And yes, Katrina DID "do that." It's not like it was a nice sunny day and the levees just failed and flooded the city

No offense, who cares? It happened period. How do you fix this? You move! away from water, or in a place where hurricanes won't appear out of nowhere...

So what flooded the city? Katrina or the levees? Thanks.

Id say Katrina.. ;)

Katrina, because if it wasn't for Katrina the levees wouldn't fail flooding the city. If Katrina wasn't that powerful maybe the levees wouldn't have failed.

It's all about cause & effect.

Cause:
Powerful hurricane rips into N.O. weakens levees.

Effect:
Levees fail and city is flooded.

Cause:
Levees built incorrectly

Effect:
Levees failed


What if it was just a bunch of rain that filled the lake? Same result is what.

FYI, Katrina didn't weaken the levees. The water came over the top of them which then washed away the outer embankment and caused the levees to fail.

Why New Orleans levees failed

Yes, but why did the water come over the top then? It was Katrina.

New Orleans was built under sea-level, so levees or not it was bound to flood with any storm powerful enough to produce enough water.

Yes, I believe that's called logic.

Article

Guess it was human error and not Katrina.

It was human error to build a city under sea level, but it was Katrina that brought the people to reality about it ;) .

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion even if the evidence is proving them wrong i guess.

The levees failed because Katrina came along. They were doing just fine until then

Err...but without Katrina, the levees would never of failed in the first place. Saying they're a victim of the "levees failing" makes it sound like it could of happened at any point. The levee system was built quite some time ago and the fact that Katrina was the first time they actually failed at this scale further supports the "Katrina victims" bit. Also, what do you call being 'hit'? I'd consider a city of being 'hit' if it was being affected AT ALL by a hurricane. Just because it didn't hit them dead-on doesn't mean it didn't hit them all the same.

This is like telling someone who has heart disease and high blood pressure to not eat fatty foods. Yet their doctor subscribes them a pill to help this out, and they think its alright so they continue to eat fatty foods. Until a massive heart attack comes along and the pills have no effect and he dies just because he has a history of high blood pressure which could of have been prevented.


Get the symbolism??

Edited: Corrected my poor sentence structure.

Okay, so massive rain with no hurricane would not have topped the levees? The bowl will fill up and over when water goes in. It doesn't require a hurricane to fill it up. What about places in the mid-west that flood? Is that due to a hurricane?

@ Master_Odin - If I see a cloud in the sky that is from an extreme outer rain ban or a gentle breeze from Gustav then I guess by your standards I got a direct hit.

Bottom line is, the levees failed due to the quantity of water, there are other things that can cause large quantities of water other than a hurricane. Had the levees held then the city would not have flooded. Ergo, human error just like the ACE owned up to in the articles and judges are backing up my theory. Guess they are wrong also?

@ BGarcia - lol @ "subscribes", what symbolism? Apples and oranges right there. It's like you are saying that the levees failing had nothing to do with it. It had everything to do with it, matter of fact, that was the entire problem. Human error.

Apparently it did need a hurricane to fill it up since the past this never happened .

The Army Corps of Engineers let the Bush Administration know that if funding for the levees was cut, they wouldn't withstand a powerful storm. The Bush Administration slashed 80% of the funding we were supposed to get, and diverted that money towards the war. I lost power for a while, took a huge business hit, my parents were without power and water for weeks.

Where I live now is elevated, I expect to lose electricity, but at least I won't flood (cars might), my family is going to be staying at my place until everything is over.

Fine, let me expand on my previous statement. If a city is hit with class 3 winds/rain, then it's more or less being hit by the hurricane, no? Or should it not be considered as being hit because it's not getting the top wind speed as other places?

P.S. class 3 wind means about 111-130 mph just so you know...

Hope everything goes OK DXL, and anyone else near the area.

I was wondering back then why Mississippi got left out also. the media is good about that.... they pick and choose. Really none of them are professional anymore either. They do a lot of things which used to be considered unprofessional.

They were on the east side of the storm, they got the worst of the hurricane but they weren't whining like another place was. My whole point is this:

1. Katrina itself did not flood the city.
2. The levees failed, that is the reason the city flooded.
3. The levees failed due to human error.

Only logical conclusion: Human error caused many deaths 3 years ago, not a hurricane.

That wording is sos tupid. Why did they add in that it's "oil-rich". That's dumb.

Anyway I see it was a category 4 when hitting Cuba. They had forecast it being still a 2, if I am not mistaken, and then a 3 when hitting the U.S. didn't they? So it looks to me like if it does what it originally was supposed to, it would be a 5 in the U.S.

I haven't looked closely at data, but I think it's safe to say that whatever the hurricane is when gettiung back totally in the water, it's going to strengthen from that. The Gulf Of Mexico should be mighty warm since water warms at a lag compared to land (warmest times are c ouple months after land's warmest times).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/08/30/n...eans/index.html

I can possibly understand the people who can't afford it (though I was under the impression there was transportation?), but the stubbornness of some people quite astounds me. Showing you're not a wuss is one thing. Downright stupidity is another.

Yes, I said it. I'm sorry if you live down there and can understand this attitude. I really don't.

People are stubborn during a lot of things.

I remember in one of my weather classes we were told about a hurricane that hit in Mississippi years back and people had a "hurricane party" at a hotel there instead of fleeing and it killed them all by destroying the hotel.

I thought this topic was about Gustav?

Update: the storm is about 12-18 hrs from landfall now, somewhere on the western or central coast of Louisiana. New Orleans may not get a direct hit, but that is not 100% for sure as of now.

It will likely pack winds 120-130 mph on landfall, or slightly higher. Flooding will be a HUGE concern as storm surge will be up to 30 feet high possibly, or more.

Good morning everyone and happy Labor Day to all.

Gustav has weakened to a category 2 storm, which is the good news.

The bad news is that it will slow down and turn west once it reaches land, likely flooding areas like Baton Rouge, Shreveport, and maybe even the Dallas - Ft. Worth area by the end of the week. Tornadoes and high winds are also a major concern today as well.

This is affecting my fanatsy abseball decisions. I was going to pick up a texas player, but they play at home the next few days and I figured I would be risking rainouts in this crucial last month of the season. Hopefully florida is out of the woods from the outer bands soon also.

Dude.. Who cares what caused it to fail? Honestly. The "fact" is that it happened, and that the hurricane did cause enough rain to cause the levees to fail. Yes if a powerful enough storm with enough rain other than a hurricane filled it up to the same point it would have failed. But the point is there hasn't been a powerful enough rain storm to cause anything remotely similar in that area, let alone a history, otherwise they would have been more concerned about fixing the problem before something drastic happened.

Whether you agree with it or not, Katrina was an indirect cause to the levees failing, regardless of human error playing a part in the disaster. Thus, I would consider them to be victims of Katrina. Could the levees have failed by another indirect means? Maybe so. Did it? Of course not.

There's really no point in arguing over it. Something bad happened to a lot of people. What "the cause" was does not invalidate their needs by any means.

I'm here to report that Gustav has finally made landfall about 70 miles west of New Orleans. HOWEVER there are reports that the levees may not hold much longer due to some spillover and undercutting from the extreme pressure that they are under.

More updates to come shortly.

Yeah it seems kind of borderline, where it could be bad or may be a "dodged the bullet" situation. Time will tell I guess.

I am guessing they will hold "well enough". But I am only basing it on guessing. I can't really know as far as that goes... Someone would have to know the local area very well PLUS have expertise in other areas.

Well the storm is almost over me now. Yay. obviously not a hurricane now, but it's strong enough to spawn tornadoes stilla nd we have a tornadow atch.

I remember a hurricane like a decade ago which kept going all over the country and ended up here more than a week after it came on shore and dumped a ton of rain and caused flooding even after that long after it originally came on shore. I'm pretty sure it was Hugo, but I can't remember for sure.