The term "minimal" is not part of the official classification of hurricanes. However, it is useful to distinguish, for example, a 74 mph storm from a 95 mph storm.

And frankly, I think it's very useful in cases such as Katrina, particularly to clarify for people in South Florida that what we experienced with Katrina was a minimal Cat 1 hurricane; in fact, many if not most places only experienced strong tropical storm force winds, i.e., sustained winds below 74 mph, despite the fact that gusts were greater than that (which is consistent with strong TS conditions). For some reason, despite the yearly threat of tropical systems here, there continue to be problems of preparedness and expectation in South Florida. Part of this may be due to several news stations' broadcast of information/forecasts which do not accurately reflect those put out by the NHC, and part of it may be due to the fact that before Katrina, most of the Greater Miami area had not experienced category 1 conditions since at least the 60's. (Yes, parts of the county had experienced a Cat 5, and parts had experienced less than that during Andrew; but otherwise, we've only had brushes with hurricanes since the 60's, the strongest probably being strong TS conditions in parts of Miami with Irene in 1999. I realize the eye of Irene passed over Miami-Dade County, but Greater Miami did not have sustained 74+ mph winds during that storm.)

I think that by clarifying that what we experienced was a minimal Cat 1 hurricane (if even that; once again, many places did not experience sustained hurricane force winds), the lessons are: (1) even a TS or minimal hurricane can cause significant damage, power outages, etc. (which is entirely in line with what is predicted with such storms, and consistent with the NHC forecast in this case); and (2) a strong CAT 1 would produce even more damage, and we would have to be prepared for even more than what Katarina delivered if a 95 mph storm (still a Cat 1) were bearing down on us.

In the case of Katrina, we got exactly what the NHC predicted and exactly what is expected with such a storm. We were under a hurricane warning for approximately 20 hours before the storm hit; the NHC never backed down from statements that we could experience a Cat 1 hurricane in Miami, although the odds of a direct hit were higher in WPB and Broward. The damage in South Miami-Dade, although surprising to many, was exactly what is expected with a minimal Cat 1 and less than what is expected with a strong Cat 1. We have tons of tree damage, some damage to power lines and signs, but very minimal/sparse damage to structures; and many of use lost power for 3-7+ days. This is exactly what is predicted with a 75-80 mph storm.

Although I wish Katrina hadn't affected us, or anyone else, I hope it serves as a wake up call to South Florida as to what a minimal Cat 1 storm can do. Unfortunately, I continue to have doubts that many lessons were learned. Even now, only about 10 days later, I don't think there's much change. Perhaps not the best proof, but one sign: there's a depression very nearby that probably won't affect us, but "probably" isn't what preparation should be based on; the NHC's experimental wind product shows a 29% of tropical storm force winds in Miami, and the public should be aware of that fact, of the fact that there is a chance of having tropical storm conditions in Miami. Unfortunately, pretty much everybody I've spoken to today has just said, "That storm is going north of us," and some of this morning's newscasts did nothing to change that perception. This isn't much different than the general public perception of the threat from Irene, Katrina, and many storms which did miss us. (Of course this doesn't apply to everyone, as some people are well aware of NHC's forecasts, but it certainly is a problem.)

Every storm that comes near, these problems baffle me more. Tropical prediction is not an exact science, but most people seem to want "yes" or "no" answers regarding tropical systems, and will only listen to those answers. Either it is going to hit us or it isn't; there's no middle ground, no "maybe." But the science is only at the point of "maybes."

Please forgive my little rant, but I really don't know how the NHC or other organizations can get their messages out more effectively. They seem to say things very clearly, but sometimes I feel like people/newscasters/others aren't listening or reading. It must be very frustrating for forecasters.