Do you know the similarities between Katrina and Andrew?

Question

Hurricane season is upon us once again. As a former resident of Dade County FL (Miami), I can tell you that Hurricane Andrew was the most terrifying thing I have ever experienced.

On August 24th 1992, Andrew made landfall in Southern Dade County around 5AM. I used to live in Aventura, on the Dade Broward Co line, 40 miles from Homestead. Shingles were torn from the roof, and windows were blown out by falling tree limbs. Homestead was leveled. At that time, Andrew was the most devistating natural disaster in US history. We all know how devistating Katrina was for the New Orleans area. Andrew and Katrina have many similarities. Andrew hit on Aug 24th. Katrina on Aug 29th. Andrew hit South FL as a Cat 5 hurricane, and then took a track straight for New Orleans, hitting New Orleans as a Cat 1 days later. Katrina hit Miami as a Cat 1 and then followed the same track as Andrew, however, unlike Andrew Katrina strengthened in the Gulf and was a Cat 3 when it hit New Orleans, and the region

Answer 1

As I see it, there are more differences than similarities.

The tracks were not that similar - Andrew fromed over the Atlantic well off the coast of Africa, Katrina over the Caribbean. After moving over S FL, Katrina headed SW into the Gulf and intensified, Andrew more so moved straight across and weakened.

Andrew moved quickly and Katrina slowly.

Andrew became stronger as it approached land (thus the upgrade to a category 5 3 years ago upon examination of more data):

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1992andrew.html

Katrina weakened approaching New Orleans.

Andrew was (as you said like I can't - being there) a terrifying storm which abruptly strengthened near the S FL coast then battered locations inland for a brief period. There was not nealry so much wind damage with Katrina, and the problems evolved much more gradually. Thus the insurance companies which want to claim no wind damage, rather flood damage - because that is not covered for some.

The similarities are they were both major hurricanes which happened to track over 2 of the same regions in August.

To Hank: Don 't be so picky about one mistake. Look at my other answers and you'll see I know where the Atlantic is (but for some reason typed Pacific there). My answer also implies the storm surge was not a large factor for Andrew where it was for Katrina with its flooding, though I did not explicitly state so.

Answer 2

As I see it, there are more differences than similarities.

The tracks were not that similar - Andrew fromed over the Pacific well off the coast of Africa, Katrina over the Caribbean. After moving over S FL, Katrina headed SW into the Gulf and intensified, Andrew more so moved straight across and weakened.

Andrew moved quickly and Katrina slowly.

Andrew became stronger as it approached land (thus the upgrade to a category 5 3 years ago upon examination of more data):

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1992andrew.html...

Katrina weakened approaching New Orleans.

Andrew was (as you said like I can't - being there) a terrifying storm which abruptly strengthened near the S FL coast then battered locations inland for a brief period. There was not nealry so much wind damage with Katrina, and the problems evolved much more gradually. Thus the insurance companies which want to claim no wind damage, rather flood damage - because that is not covered for some.

The similarities are they were both major hurricanes which happened to track over 2 of the same regions in August.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


well andrew is a little tiny thing and katrina is a ******* big thing make any difference

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Spike. You are obviously high on crack. Andrew was a catagory 5 . Katrina was a catagory 3. If a storm as powerful as Andrew would have hit New Orleans, the Superdome would have likely collapsed . The entire levee system would have failed. Andrew is one of only 3 catagory 5 storms to make landfall in the 20th century. The levee breach is what made Katrina that astronomcal disaster that it was, not the storms winds and rain. Had the levee at the 17th St canal not failed, New Orleans would have sustained moderate damage and Katrina wouldn't be the notorious disaster that it is. Most buildings in New Orleans are still standing, unless they were torn down because of the flooding. In Homestead Florida, there were no structures spared from the 160 MPH sustained winds.

Andrew formed as a tropical wave off the west coast of Africa which is the Atlantic Ocean. All Pacific storms are usually called Cyclones or Typhoons.

The tracks were similar in the US region, not out in the open waters. That is the point I was making.

Answer 3

Here is what I see is the defference between Anderw and Katrina, in Andrew, the destruction came from poorly build houses, they didn't have the proper attachment that prevents roofs from flying off, also Hurricane Andrew at landfall was a catagory 5 hurricane, unlike Katrina, which at landfall was a catagory 3 hurricane, the difference here is the levees. They broke when they shouldn't have.

Answer 4

So, what is your question?

Notwithstanding Joseph-c*m-Don S.'s stupid claim that Andrew formed over the Pacific, another difference was that Andrew by moving east to west over the north-south Florida peninsula, with its less windy with parallel northerly winds west quadrant hitting land first, had far less of a storm surge than did Katrina, which was moving south to north over an east-west coastline with its most intense easterly and northeastery quadrants and southerly and southeastery winds
pushing open waters.

Answer 5

well andrew is a little tiny thing and katrina is a ******* big thing make any difference