Ominous image of what will eventually occur on the TX coast

[Dr. Jonah Rainwater]

I'd like to see some damage photos from Alicia

[Extremeweatherguy]

Normandy, I disagree with your post about storm size. IMO, It really has more to do with the speed of a storm. The reason Alicia did not produce hurricane sustained winds in downtown Houston was the fact that she did not move very fast. If she would have moved at a higher clip, then sustained hurricane force winds for downtown would have been a reality. Instead though, she moved a bit slower and produced lower speeds (though she was still able to produce impressive 99mph gusts. which IMO makes up for the lack of hurricane force sustained wind speeds in terms of damage).

Also, when you mention Charley, it is funny to note that he actually produced 80+mph sustained winds and 100-110mph gusts in Orlando (over 120-140 miles inland from landfall)! That is much further inland than Houston is from the coast, and a similar strength storm with the same speed as Charley making a direct hit on this area would be devastating (wind wise). Houston would likely see sustained winds over 95mph and gusts over 120mph if a Charley scenario took place in this area with a direct hit. Also, upon hitting Florida Charley did not "fall apart". Instead, he maintained a solid core across the state (remaining at hurricane strength the whole time) and then he moved offshore and was able to reorganize some. That is impressive and I would assume the same would happen if a storm like that hit this region. Charley would have likely made it well into north Texas as a notable storm and probably would have maintained TS strength through Oklahoma and Kansas (just like the 1900 storm did).

So in the end, I think the faster a storm is, the more likely it is to remain intact long enough to reach us as a major hurricane. Though a large, fast storm would obviously always be worse than a smaller, fast storm (due to more people being affected)...I think both storm types have an equal chance at bringing the Houston metro major wind-related damage. Let's just hope that we never have to witness any strong storm, be it big or small, fast or slow, for many years to come...


BTW: Here is a map of the storm track and forecast wind speeds from the NWS for Charley...

http://www.spikowski.com/HurricaneCharleyTrack.pdf

And here is a link to a NOAA Ariel mapping mission following Charley that discusses some of the wind speeds at the coast and well-inland. Interesting to notice hurricane force gusts as high as 87mph still occuring on the east coast of Florida which was over 175 miles inland from Charley's landfall
http://www.weather.gov/om/data/pdfs/CharleyPSDA.pdf

[hurricanehortense]

Link for Alicia photos
http://www.jimzura.com/Update901/PhotoAliciaPage.htm

[Extremeweatherguy]

Downtown Houston following Alicia...

[Normandy]

Normandy, I disagree with your post about storm size. IMO, It really has more to do with the speed of a storm. The reason Alicia did not produce hurricane sustained winds in downtown Houston was the fact that she did not move very fast. If she would have moved at a higher clip, then sustained hurricane force winds for downtown would have been a reality. Instead though, she moved a bit slower and produced lower speeds (though she was still able to produce impressive 99mph gusts. which IMO makes up for the lack of hurricane force sustained wind speeds in terms of damage).

Also, when you mention Charley, it is funny to note that he actually produced 80+mph sustained winds and 100-110mph gusts in Orlando (over 120-140 miles inland from landfall)! That is much further inland than Houston is from the coast, and a similar strength storm with the same speed as Charley making a direct hit on this area would be devastating (wind wise). Houston would likely see sustained winds over 95mph and gusts over 120mph if a Charley scenario took place in this area with a direct hit. Also, upon hitting Florida Charley did not "fall apart". Instead, he maintained a solid core across the state (remaining at hurricane strength the whole time) and then he moved offshore and was able to reorganize some. That is impressive and I would assume the same would happen if a storm like that hit this region. Charley would have likely made it well into north Texas as a notable storm and probably would have maintained TS strength through Oklahoma and Kansas (just like the 1900 storm did).

So in the end, I think the faster a storm is, the more likely it is to remain intact long enough to reach us as a major hurricane. Though a large, fast storm would obviously always be worse than a smaller, fast storm (due to more people being affected)...I think both storm types have an equal chance at bringing the Houston metro major wind-related damage. Let's just hope that we never have to witness any strong storm, be it big or small, fast or slow, for many years to come...


BTW: Here is a map of the storm track and forecast wind speeds from the NWS for Charley...

http://www.spikowski.com/HurricaneCharleyTrack.pdf

And here is a link to a NOAA Ariel mapping mission following Charley that discusses some of the wind speeds at the coast and well-inland. Interesting to notice hurricane force gusts as high as 87mph still occuring on the east coast of Florida which was over 175 miles inland from Charley's landfall
http://www.weather.gov/om/data/pdfs/CharleyPSDA.pdf

Sorry, but I still believe size is the most important factor in bringing MAJOR hurricane conditions inland into downtown Houston. WHile Hurricane Charley did bring hurricane force winds 100+ miles inland, how far inland did it bring major hurricane conditions? Don't look at advisories for evidence, find wind measurements showing that Charley brought 100 kt winds past Arcadia, which is MUCH less than 40 miles from the coast. Sure, a hurricane like Charley could definitely bring hurricane conditions into downtown, but major hurricane conditions, no way.

Another thing you need to consider when thinking about the Upper TX coast....its not Florida. Florida is a peninsula, thus dry air entrainment would not be as big of a problem for a hurricane striking there. Also, Charley was enhanced by a trough....I doubt that a hurricane striking Texas would be enhanced by a trough as much as Charley was. Also, i bring Wilma in as another example.

Hurricane Wilma made landfall as a Cat3 with 130 mph winds, and its eyewall brought sustained 100 mph+ winds across Florida's entire peninsula, from west coast to east coast. In fact, it barely weakened any while crossing Florida, while Charley CONSIDERABLY weakened. You don't think Wilma being a very large system with a 50 mile wide eye didn't help it sustain itself (Because both Wilma and Charley were enhanced by troughs)? Make Wilma a 150 mph hurricane like Charley, and it brings near major hurricane conditions across the entire state of FL, while Charley only brings major hurricane conditions near the immediate coastline (less than 20 miles inland). Thats the difference.

EDIT
"Severe freshwater flooding was minimized by Alicia's fast movement inland, and most damage was the result of wind and storm surge or a combination of the two"
Alicia did NOT move slowly inland.

[Extremeweatherguy]

Normandy, you do make some good points..however, I do want to clarify that Arcadia actually is over 40 miles from the landfall point of Hurricane Charley. Upon mapping the distance with this website ( http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/ ) I found it to be about 46-47 miles inland. Very comparable to the Houston metro.

Also...In terms of actual distance to water, and not just landfall site, the distance from Arcadia to Charlotte Harbor's waterline is 22 miles...the distance from Houston to Galveston Bay is 21 miles.



BTW: You are right about Alicia. She actually did not move slowly inland. I mixed up my facts by watching a telecast of that event recently and thinking the newscast of the storm in NW Houston was taking place hours after it did. Turns out I believed she was about 4-6 hours slower than she actually was. Either way though, Alicia at a 115mph landfall is not quite the same as a Charley-like storm (or worse) at a 150mph+ landfall.

[Normandy]

Wow, i was mistaken, i thought Arcadia was was closer to the coast. However, i also was mistaken, as I don't think Arcadia recieved sustained major hurricane conditions, i couldnt find any reports of 111+ mph winds sustained there...

Forward speed is important, but I highly doubt a hurricane would move that fast into the Texas coast...i figure movement along the lines of 15-20 mph is more likely than 25 mph+.

[Stratosphere747]

Alicia was a borderline 3. Great discos from pros and amateurs alike could make the case for Alicia being a low end 3 or a rapidly intensifying 2.

Regardless, Carla, at least at the coastal area was more destructive than Alicia. Alicia has stuck in peoples mind because of what she did to the high rises within Houston.

Carla for Texas, hitting at San Luis Pass would have been comparable to Katrina. In fact it may have exceeded what Katrina did because of the possibility of compromising the seawall.

[Derek Ortt]

Alicia was a cat 3 because, as the NHC report suggests, the 850mb flight level winds were 100KT

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_w ... elim02.gif

now, I am aware that the aircraft at times had a low bias due to radar issues, so those winds may very well be low. However, based upon the wind reports, it seems more likely that Alicia was a cat 2 at landfall (as I believe a few other recent GC landfalls were, Katrina EXCLUDED, but that is another debate)

I may be wrong, and if I am, will someone from Houston please correct me, but I believe that most of the damage to the center of Houston was due to the gravel roofs, and the winds caused stones to fly. Thus, you had damage similar to Miami in Wilma despite much lower wind speeds

[Extremeweatherguy]

Alicia was a borderline 3. Great discos from pros and amateurs alike could make the case for Alicia being a low end 3 or a rapidly intensifying 2.

Regardless, Carla, at least at the coastal area was more destructive than Alicia. Alicia has stuck in peoples mind because of what she did to the high rises within Houston.

Carla for Texas, hitting at San Luis Pass would have been comparable to Katrina. In fact it may have exceeded what Katrina did because of the possibility of compromising the seawall.

I 100% agree with that. A storm like Carla would be an absolute disaster if it hit this area head on. Galveston (and other coastal areas) would likely be wiped clean by the surge and wind, and inland locations would be blasted by the wind. There would also be a huge national economic toll due to many oil refineries being hit head on. Let's hope we never see a scenario like that play out in the near future..

[Extremeweatherguy]

thanks for posting that document Derek Ortt. It shows something I did not know; Houston actually did recieve sustained hurricane force winds from Alicia (at Hobby airport)...81mph. The reports I had heard in the past of only tropical force winds in metro Houston seemed to have applied only to northern sections (IAH's max sustained speed was 51mph). That, in turn, seems to strengthen my arguement that a fast storm could be just as bad as a large one. A storm that is 30mph stronger than Alicia at landall (moving at the same speed) could theoretically produce 111mph sustained winds at Hobby airport.

[Stratosphere747]

Alicia was a cat 3 because, as the NHC report suggests, the 850mb flight level winds were 100KT

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_w ... elim02.gif

now, I am aware that the aircraft at times had a low bias due to radar issues, so those winds may very well be low. However, based upon the wind reports, it seems more likely that Alicia was a cat 2 at landfall (as I believe a few other recent GC landfalls were, Katrina EXCLUDED, but that is another debate)

I may be wrong, and if I am, will someone from Houston please correct me, but I believe that most of the damage to the center of Houston was due to the gravel roofs, and the winds caused stones to fly. Thus, you had damage similar to Miami in Wilma despite much lower wind speeds

Your correct Derek.

[Ptarmigan]

Alicia was a cat 3 because, as the NHC report suggests, the 850mb flight level winds were 100KT

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_w ... elim02.gif

now, I am aware that the aircraft at times had a low bias due to radar issues, so those winds may very well be low. However, based upon the wind reports, it seems more likely that Alicia was a cat 2 at landfall (as I believe a few other recent GC landfalls were, Katrina EXCLUDED, but that is another debate)

I may be wrong, and if I am, will someone from Houston please correct me, but I believe that most of the damage to the center of Houston was due to the gravel roofs, and the winds caused stones to fly. Thus, you had damage similar to Miami in Wilma despite much lower wind speeds

Most of the damage was from flying gravel from roofs in Houston. That was common with Alicia.

[HurricaneBill]

I think Claudette serves as a reminder of how quickly a serious hurricane threat can develop.

We've seen a lot of storms strengthen into monsters in the Gulf and then weaken prior to landfall. Sooner or later, a storm will move through the Gulf without much strengthening but then suddenly rev up prior to landfall.

Examples: Eloise 1975
Anita 1977
Frederic 1979

[Derek Ortt]

the best case of that, Bill, may be Celia in 1970. Weakened then rapidly intensified into a 115KT cat 3 just before landfall

[Ptarmigan]

the best case of that, Bill, may be Celia in 1970. Weakened then rapidly intensified into a 115KT cat 3 just before landfall

115KT=135 mph
Category 4

Hurricane Celia made landfall with 130 mph and gust as high as 180 mph.

[Swimdude]

I want to apologize to you Jagno about my statement about being overdue. I plead guilty to thinking of Rita as a Louisiana storm. I know that landfall was technically in Louisiana and Louisiana caught the right side of the storm and much of the horrific surge. But I want to apologize because I know that the people of Texas also suffered greatly from this storm. There seems to have been almost tornadic effect just to the left of the eye at landfall which ran up the west side of the Sabine River (East Texas). Again, I apologize to our Texas posters.

I always saw Rita as a Texas hurricane as well. It made landfall on the Texas/Louisiana border.

I'll be honest, it's hard to remember Rita as a Texas hurricane when you live in Houston and flew a kite that afternoon...

[KatDaddy]

Celia produced extreme wind gusts to 185 MPH on the southern Eyewall over SW portions of Corpus. The Corpus NWS recorded 161MPH gust. Give Claudette another 24 hours over the warm GOM and she too would nearing a CAT 4 or CAT 4 at landfall.

[Derek Ortt]

115KT is also cat 3. In fact, until very recently, 115KT was exclusively used as a cat 3. 110KT is 125

[Berwick Bay]

I was the one that brought the name Alicia into this thread early on. The thread concerned potential impacts on Houston from hurricane strikes along the Gulf Coast. My obvservations were based strictly on memory from events in 1983. So you guys have done the research and confirmed that Houston did in fact get sustained winds of hurricane forces (at the airport), and that their were gusts in the 90's in downtown. This is pretty much in accord with my original observation. Are their bigger and stronger hurricanes which could potentially affect Houston? Of course. But I don't see that Alicia is such a bad example of hurricane impact considering that she did in fact bring hurricane conditions to Houston, which is really all my post was saying anyhow. So Alicia was in fact the last hurricane to bring hurricane conditions to Houston (1983).