Talk:Katrina

Proposed merger of Katrina (given name) into Katrina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was not to merge Katrina (given name) into Katrina. -- Terry Carroll 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Katrina (given name) page is not so long that it shouldn't be included here. The Katrina (given name) page also includes one name, Katrina Leskanich, of someone who is best known just by her first name, Katrina. Someone searching on "Katrina" should be able to find it on the first disambiguation page, rather than going through multiple disambiguation pages. Terry Carroll 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (comment cleaned up by Terry Carroll 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No way. This disambiguation has nothing to do with that article or nothing close. This is not a article. its a disambiguation. XU-engineer 21:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're both disambiguations, on the name "Katrina." Terry Carroll 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Terry) ~~Have to object as well, can't merge an article into a disambiguation page.~~ I did however re-format it a little, does this help address your concerns? R. Baley 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (refactor comment and add note) aah, I see what you mean now, I still think the Katrina(given name) would overwhelm any other usage on the Katrina page. I did reformat the two pages a little (moved a couple of names as noted) and made the link to the Katrina(given name) page somewhat clearer. Is that better? R. Baley 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better; and although I still believe that the pages should be merged, it's apparent that the more popular view is the opposite. I'm counting not only R. Baley and XU-engineer, who commented above, but also Chris the speller, who I see split the pages apart only a few months ago, and presumably also would want them kept that way. Given that, I think it's appropriate to close the discussion with a conclusion of No Merge. Terry Carroll 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hmm, that's a pity. I must agree with Terry, it's a bit akward this way. I understand that the hurricane means that lots of people typing 'Katrina' will want to see that, but I also feel that it is pretty annoying if you want to find a certain Katrina-person and you have to click several times. My propsal would've followed something like this outline:

General
- Meteorology
- Science
- Locations
- Other
People
- ...
See Also

What I'm trying to say, is keep the things that'll be overshadowed at the top, but then have a big heading for people. Scrolling down is just as much trouble as clicking, after all. Alternatively, what about a table? That way we can decrease it's size vertically, which would be great. Anyway, I got here because nobody deleted the proposed merger, but I'm removing it now. If it's re-opened for discussion you can add it again. --Leviel 12:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eyewall Theory

The impact of this storm make no sense according to the saffir Simpson scale. I was forced to become an expert on hurricanes and Katrina in particular. New Orleans was not a Storm disaster it was an engineering disaster. However, Mississippi was totally a storm diaster. The damage everywhere was indicative of a 150 mph Cat 5 storm and according to the established Saffir-Simpson scale only a Cat 5 can cause 27 foot tidal surge. Many people died because they used Camille as the bench mark and it was a Cat 5. Yet Katrina was worse. Yet few ask why.

The answer is simple. It was our first Super Cat Five Hurricane. With hurricane winds nearly 250 miles across. It was strengthened sightseeing as it hit Mississippi or the double eye wall theory. The hurricane hunters didn’t fly back into after it hit an area of super heated water right off Louisiana Coast. How do I know this? Because I was fishing the Big Game Tournament with Captain John Lambeth and we spent 20k and got skunked like 47 of the 50 something other boats because the water was super heated or 97-98 degrees at the surface which forced all the fish to be too deep to catch trolling. The only boats that caught fish figured this out and went to mouth of Mississippi. John Lambeth was a well known outdoor sports writer and a veteran of over 50-60 years on the water. He had never seen water this hot in the Gulf of Mexico in his life. It was all over the area between Ursa and rampile rigs. No one had ever seen this before, Katrina went right over this area. Thus it was strengthening. The hurricane hunters did not fly back into after it hit this area. And all the weather stations including the one that was cited in this article blew out. That was maximum recorded before it blew off the roof. We know this because we deposed all these people under oath. The actual damage in Mississippi and Tidal surge clearly indicate it’s was a strengthening storm with 150 mph plus winds. We proved this point every single trial because it is the truth. Even Saffir or Simpson or someone with the scale agreed.

The failure to recognize this killed people in Mississippi. Please include the double eyeball theory in your story so it makes sense. Because saying a Cat 3 storm can cause 130 mph winds 60 miles inland, destroy over 150 homes in Laurel area, 90-100 miles inland and create a 27 foot tidal surge is bs. The Coastal Weather Research Center has determined that an explanation for the extensive destruction is that Hurricane Katrina was a “double eyewall” storm when it crossed the Gulf Coast. Double eyewall hurricanes have two concentric rings in which the highest winds are focused. https://www.southalabama.edu/departments/publicrelations/pressreleases/archives/2007pr/blackwellresearchpaper.pdf Jackfish28 (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]