STORM2K • View topic - Highest storm surge in US history

Find the Weather for any
City, State, Zip Code, or ICAO

 
 

It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:36 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.[td100]



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  Last
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 6:59 pm 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: East Longmeadow, MA, USA
wxman57 wrote:
One more thing about Carla's pressure A2K. Yes the lowest measured pressure was 931mb. But there wasn't a continuous stream of recon into Carla as there would be with current storms. I'm not sure how often Carla's pressure was actually measured. Could well have been 15-25 mb lower. But, again, it's the size of the stronger wind field that is more significant than the peak wind in a tiny area near the core.


Indeed. The 931mb was measured at landfall.

I think I read somewhere that a wind gust of 178 mph was measured in Carla.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 8:01 pm 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 5400
Location: Metaire, La.
Quote:
That radar can be a bit deceiving. Carla passed about 170 miles south of Galveston. That radar picture was taken when the center was about 180 miles from Galveston's radar (26.5N/94.5W). Because of attenuation and the surface of the earth curving away from the radar beam, you're seeing only half the hurricane. Looks like TS force winds have already moved ashore north of Galveston at 180 miiles from the center. That's a monster of a hurricane.


I agree, and have consistently on most of those points. Regarding the size, again, bear in mind also that tropical storm force winds have been found as far as 230 miles from the center of Katrina, as per the NHC's own 6:00 CDT advisory on the storm dated 8/29--quite a monster in its own right. And Rita's intensity (as well as highes peak winds) were even greater than that.

while I also admit the 931 isn't the result of a continuous stream, the pattern of pressure measurements are readily available..the 931 was near landfall, and prior to that was a 935 6 hours before that. Could she have dipped much below 931 and then risen back to that point all within those 6 hours while moving ashore?--possible, I suppose; but the pattern doesn't support much of a dip, if any. The data on her pressure readings were there enough to show 935 6 hrs before that landfall and actually 936 while at all Cat 5 readings...Anyway, we're arguing/discussing in a vacuum, and frankly I think we both agree on most points. Each storm was very large in size, and at their peak, quite intense. All the rest is perspective based upon what data one looks at, and how they interpret them. Like MGC, I remember Nash reporting on her (think I even dropped his name earlier :wink: ); but people in the bend of Florida were receiving cirrus outflow from Katrina, as were folks on the Yucatan... that is no small storm by any stretch of the imagination. Both of these not so lady-like ladies, were quite huge.

A2K


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 8:29 pm 
Offline
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Posts: 14374
Location: Houston, TX
Here's another graphic I made of all major hurricanes in the Gulf that I could find reliable wind data. Four wind fields are graphed - 35kt, 50kt, 65kt, and 87kt (100 mph). Gilbert and Carla were the two top storms for size. Katrina's wind field was a bit larger than Rita's, except for the 100 mph radius.

Note how tiny Charley, Bret, Dennis, and Lily were. Camille (yellow plot) was quite small as well.

http://myweb.cableone.net/nolasue/gulfstorms.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 8:49 pm 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 5400
Location: Metaire, La.
Interesting chart. Out of curiosity, where exactly do you get your numbers from to make the graphs? Yeah, quite a few of those killers were quite compact. I heard the max wind field for Charley was barely 6 miles across--almost like a very large tornado.

A2K


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 10:33 pm 
Offline
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:42 pm
Posts: 263
Location: SE Alabama..formerly the land of ivan and dennis
I find it interesting that Dennis had a relatively large 35 knot windfield but a very tiny 87 knot windfield. quite a discrepancy there.

docjoe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 10:35 pm 
docjoe wrote:
I find it interesting that Dennis had a relatively large 35 knot windfield but a very tiny 87 knot windfield. quite a discrepancy there.

docjoe


One eyewall replacement cycle would have tripled the damage total


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 11:37 pm 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 5400
Location: Metaire, La.
docjoe wrote:
I find it interesting that Dennis had a relatively large 35 knot windfield but a very tiny 87 knot windfield. quite a discrepancy there.

docjoe


Could well be that infamous pressure gradient cropping up again!

A2K


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 11:38 pm 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 5400
Location: Metaire, La.
Quote:
One eyewall replacement cycle would have tripled the damage total


Thank heaven for small favors!

A2K


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:51 am 
Offline
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 4550
Location: Tucson, AZ
As far as I know, the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 was the only hurricane to strike the US that was larger than Carla at peak size. Also the peak gust measured at Port Lavaca TX in Carla of 172 mph is second only to the 186 mph at Blue Hill in 1938.

Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 4:11 am 
Aslkahuna wrote:
As far as I know, the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 was the only hurricane to strike the US that was larger than Carla at peak size. Also the peak gust measured at Port Lavaca TX in Carla of 172 mph is second only to the 186 mph at Blue Hill in 1938.

Steve


Steve, do you have that data, and date of the Blue Hill event in 1938 handy?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 8:56 am 
Offline
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Posts: 14374
Location: Houston, TX
Aslkahuna wrote:
As far as I know, the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 was the only hurricane to strike the US that was larger than Carla at peak size. Also the peak gust measured at Port Lavaca TX in Carla of 172 mph is second only to the 186 mph at Blue Hill in 1938.

Steve


Do you have any wind radii data on that hurricane? I know there wasn't any recon in 1944, so all that's out there would be ship reports around the hurricane. Looks like it was a Cat 1-2 hurricane, right? The largest hurricane in our entire database was Wilma after it passed Florida. Wilma was beginning extratropical transition along a cold front. Such a transition can dramatically increase the wind field size but the core intensity drops off a lot. Perhaps that is what occurred in 1944?


Last edited by wxman57 on Sun May 07, 2006 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 9:14 am 
Offline
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Posts: 14374
Location: Houston, TX
Audrey2Katrina wrote:
Interesting chart. Out of curiosity, where exactly do you get your numbers from to make the graphs? Yeah, quite a few of those killers were quite compact. I heard the max wind field for Charley was barely 6 miles across--almost like a very large tornado.

A2K


The numbers come from a database of all named storms from 1988-2005, put together by someone at the HRD. There are over 4000 initial NHC advisory radii (00hr). In addition, we refined some of the radii for more recent hurricanes by using HRD post-storm analyses of the wind fields.

Pre-1988 data were obtained from NHC track data contained in the historical .rex files inside the SLOSH program. Less reliable recon data are available prior to 1988. Actually, it wasn't until improved dropwindsonde data and Doppler radar data of the late 1990s that recon data really began to improve.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 9:24 am 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Posts: 3800
Location: Surfside Beach/Freeport Tx
wxman57 wrote:
Aslkahuna wrote:
As far as I know, the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 was the only hurricane to strike the US that was larger than Carla at peak size. Also the peak gust measured at Port Lavaca TX in Carla of 172 mph is second only to the 186 mph at Blue Hill in 1938.

Steve


Do you have any wind radii data on that hurricane? I know there wasn't any recon in 1944, so all that's out there would be ship reports around the hurricane. Looks like it was a Cat 1-2 hurricane, right? The largest hurricane in our entire database was Wilma after it passed Florida. Wilma was beginning extratropical transition along a cold front. Such a transition can dramatically increase the wind field size but the core intensity drops off a lot. Perhaps that is what occurred in 1944?


http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/072 ... 9-0187.pdf

They actually did have recon back then...Good read and they make mention of the 38 hurricanes SS and why this one did not come close to it.

*edit*

The recon was not intentional, and looks to be army recon plane that "became involved" with the storm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 9:38 am 
Offline
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Posts: 14374
Location: Houston, TX
Stratosphere747 wrote:

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/072 ... 9-0187.pdf

They actually did have recon back then...Good read and they make mention of the 38 hurricanes SS and why this one did not come close to it.

*edit*

The recon was not intentional, and looks to be army recon plane that "became involved" with the storm.


Must have been one of the 1st recon flights by the 3rd Weather Reconnaissance Wing (http://www.hurricanehunters.com/hist1.htm). Of course, they had no way to measure central pressure or surface winds back then. I don't know how they estimated 140 mph winds, or even if they assumed that FL winds = surface winds back then. In any case, it does appear that the storm was recurving and weakening as it passed Hatteras, a scenario that would involve a rapid expansion of the wind field and a reduction in core intensity. None of that was happeneing with Carla in 1961, though. Carla was purely tropical and had quite a core.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 9:46 am 
Offline
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:42 pm
Posts: 263
Location: SE Alabama..formerly the land of ivan and dennis
Hurricane Floyd wrote:
docjoe wrote:
I find it interesting that Dennis had a relatively large 35 knot windfield but a very tiny 87 knot windfield. quite a discrepancy there.

docjoe


One eyewall replacement cycle would have tripled the damage total


coming on the heels of Ivan I dont think Milton could have handled triple the damage. While not Katrinaesque it was certainly bad enough here. The amazing (and lucky) part was the the core of the storm lasted less than an hour.

docjoe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 9:57 am 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Posts: 22688
Location: Pascagoula, MS
Those pics were from over the top flooding of the levee.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 10:37 am 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 5400
Location: Metaire, La.
Lindaloo wrote:
Those pics were from over the top flooding of the levee.


What pics are you referring to, Linda? We've wandered hither and yon with some interesting things since page one--would you be referring to the pic Christy posted the link to? It was taken by one Don McClosky, manager of Entergy's Michoud power plant. WWL TV did some coverage on it with the following comments:

"There were waves up on top of that, that were probably 15 to 18 foot on top of what you saw form the hurricane protection levee that was out there," [McClosky] said.

In a home video made by a worker at the power plant, you can hear Katrina's winds screaming through the power plant. McClosky and his crew watched as the levee reached the limits of its protection and water began pouring in. Eventually Katrina dumped between five and eight feet of water inside the power plant.

On the tape you can hear McClosky talk to his employees about moving higher as the water rose about a foot every ten minutes.

"There were waves up on top of that, that were probably 15 to 18 foot on top of what you saw form the hurricane protection levee that was out there,"


Just in case you are, I'm convinced of their authenticity. I've been to that power plant and over that Paris Rd. bridge more times than I can count. Anyway, in case I'm spinning my wheels here, I'll just say that's a pretty impressive picture of levee overtopping. And I've already said my piece on the MRGO in the Aftermath section.... :grr:

A2K


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 11:22 am 
Offline
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Posts: 14374
Location: Houston, TX
A2K, I went into Google Earth and zoomed in on the Michoud Entergy power station near the Paris Road Bridge for a presentation I'm making in Tulane next Thursday morning.

http://myweb.cableone.net/nolasue/Michoud1.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 11:32 am 
Offline
Category 5
Category 5
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Posts: 22688
Location: Pascagoula, MS
Sorry A2K. The pics in the link CHRISTY posted.

Oh I am definitely convinced those pics are accurate. When the first one was posted someone said that was from the school in Bay St. Louis. Turned out to be false, but not the actual picture.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 11:45 am 
Offline
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Posts: 14374
Location: Houston, TX
Lindaloo wrote:
Sorry A2K. The pics in the link CHRISTY posted.

Oh I am definitely convinced those pics are accurate. When the first one was posted someone said that was from the school in Bay St. Louis. Turned out to be false, but not the actual picture.


Yeah, there was a hoax going around that those pictures were of the storm surge hitting the MS coast. But they're from Entergy's Michoud power station along the Intracoastal Canal ENE of New Orleans near the Paris Road bridge. See my picture above. The pictures posted earlier show the surge in the Intracoastal Canal topping the levee below the bridge.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  Last

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: euro6208, Google [Bot], Gustywind, StormTracker and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group