Differences Andrew Camille Katrina
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts 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. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
Differences Andrew Camille Katrina
Okay someone comparing the damage of Katrina to that of Andrew made me think about what I saw after Andrew which from what I remember looked like F5 tornado damage while obviously Katrina and Camille seem to be much more damaging due to surge and flooding. Was Andrew a dryer hurricane? Or was it just a faster hurricane? Or do I just not remember the aftermath of Andrew that clearly?
0 likes
I don't understand the differences between Andrew and Camille or Katrina...I'm not sure anyone does.
It's almost as though we are talking about two different *species* of hurricane.
I do remember that the high pressure area steering Andrew was massive, and quite strong. I also remember that in the days prior to Andrew, there was a strong, quite dry ENE surge associated with this high pressure.
I know Andrew was fast moving, and Katrina was a fairly slow mover.....but could the difference in the size and the rainfall amount have something to do with the level of precipitable water in the surrounding atmosphere? The PWAT values out ahead of Andrew couldn't have been very high, because it was as dry as I'd ever seen it for late August. Yet Andrew didn't have a problem with dry air entrainment.
As for storm surge....eric pointed out that the BK HQ did experience a massive, devastating storm surge. However, one key difference between Andrew and Katrina in this area - believe it or not, there's a lot more comparatively low-lying land on the N Gulf coast than in SE FL. There's just not *as much* land that will flood here during a storm surge, because we have a coastal ridge that is quite close to the coast. My parents and I live in Coral Gables, and Pinecrest, respectively, on the bay side of US 1, not that terribly far from the bay....yet per the flood charts, this area will not suffer surge, even during a Cat. 5 - because of the ridge. If you go to the LeJeune bridge near the Cocoplum circle, you can see just how high above sea level this ridge actually is. It's higher than one would expect.
It's almost as though we are talking about two different *species* of hurricane.
I do remember that the high pressure area steering Andrew was massive, and quite strong. I also remember that in the days prior to Andrew, there was a strong, quite dry ENE surge associated with this high pressure.
I know Andrew was fast moving, and Katrina was a fairly slow mover.....but could the difference in the size and the rainfall amount have something to do with the level of precipitable water in the surrounding atmosphere? The PWAT values out ahead of Andrew couldn't have been very high, because it was as dry as I'd ever seen it for late August. Yet Andrew didn't have a problem with dry air entrainment.
As for storm surge....eric pointed out that the BK HQ did experience a massive, devastating storm surge. However, one key difference between Andrew and Katrina in this area - believe it or not, there's a lot more comparatively low-lying land on the N Gulf coast than in SE FL. There's just not *as much* land that will flood here during a storm surge, because we have a coastal ridge that is quite close to the coast. My parents and I live in Coral Gables, and Pinecrest, respectively, on the bay side of US 1, not that terribly far from the bay....yet per the flood charts, this area will not suffer surge, even during a Cat. 5 - because of the ridge. If you go to the LeJeune bridge near the Cocoplum circle, you can see just how high above sea level this ridge actually is. It's higher than one would expect.
0 likes
Patrick makes a lot of good points.
It's part chance and part environmental restructions that the area where Andrew hit actually has little shoreline development. It's nothing like a Pensacola Beach. Large areas of mangroves, a few mansions, some apartments and condos not directly on Biscayne Bay. The old Burger King headquarters was pretty much alone along a big stretch of the Bay. Fairchild Tropical Garden/Matheson Hammock had 18+ foot surge with no protection. The Cocoplum/coral gables/Coconut grove waterfront took damage, but mostly in marinas, the surge didn't make it across the street along the Grove waterfront.
Andrew's core and windfield were smaller, though the storm was moving fast, spawned many damaging vorticies that reached the ground.
Wind is the least impeded over open water than over any other topography. Andrew was at max wind and only had a few miles to go into Homestead. It's windfield was small and concentrated. The spreading of Katrina's windfield might have lessened the number or intensity of eddies/tornadoes running around the core. There's definitely 100 mph damage but not 200 mph damage, from the preliminary video I've seen.
Unfortunately, we may have a south dade scenario here too -- it took two to three days for everyone to even realize how bad homestead was. There has to be search and rescue missions to Plaquemines and all of St. Bernard ASAP. People who are trapped need to be evacuated from the hellish conditions to survive. They'll be without water and stuck under blazing sun tomorrow.
It's part chance and part environmental restructions that the area where Andrew hit actually has little shoreline development. It's nothing like a Pensacola Beach. Large areas of mangroves, a few mansions, some apartments and condos not directly on Biscayne Bay. The old Burger King headquarters was pretty much alone along a big stretch of the Bay. Fairchild Tropical Garden/Matheson Hammock had 18+ foot surge with no protection. The Cocoplum/coral gables/Coconut grove waterfront took damage, but mostly in marinas, the surge didn't make it across the street along the Grove waterfront.
Andrew's core and windfield were smaller, though the storm was moving fast, spawned many damaging vorticies that reached the ground.
Wind is the least impeded over open water than over any other topography. Andrew was at max wind and only had a few miles to go into Homestead. It's windfield was small and concentrated. The spreading of Katrina's windfield might have lessened the number or intensity of eddies/tornadoes running around the core. There's definitely 100 mph damage but not 200 mph damage, from the preliminary video I've seen.
Unfortunately, we may have a south dade scenario here too -- it took two to three days for everyone to even realize how bad homestead was. There has to be search and rescue missions to Plaquemines and all of St. Bernard ASAP. People who are trapped need to be evacuated from the hellish conditions to survive. They'll be without water and stuck under blazing sun tomorrow.
0 likes
-
StormWarning1
- Category 1
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:29 pm
- Location: Nashville TN
Its the gradual slope of the North and Western gulf of Mexico that allows the storm surge to get so big in these areas.
Florida's East coast get deep fairly quickly, so less of a surge.
The best comparison of hurricane Katrina is huricane Carla that struck central Texas in 1961. Carla was a CAT 5 until just before landfall. Katrina weakened more, winds were CAT 3 at landfall, at least sustained. Carla was a solid 4 even at landfall.
Florida's East coast get deep fairly quickly, so less of a surge.
The best comparison of hurricane Katrina is huricane Carla that struck central Texas in 1961. Carla was a CAT 5 until just before landfall. Katrina weakened more, winds were CAT 3 at landfall, at least sustained. Carla was a solid 4 even at landfall.
0 likes
-
MKT2005
StormWarning1 wrote:Its the gradual slope of the North and Western gulf of Mexico that allows the storm surge to get so big in these areas.
Florida's East coast get deep fairly quickly, so less of a surge.
The best comparison of hurricane Katrina is huricane Carla that struck central Texas in 1961. Carla was a CAT 5 until just before landfall. Katrina weakened more, winds were CAT 3 at landfall, at least sustained. Carla was a solid 4 even at landfall.
Katrina was a sold 4 at landfall, not a 3.
0 likes
-
StormWarning1
- Category 1
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:29 pm
- Location: Nashville TN
There are no reports of CAT 4 sustained winds in Katrina at landfall. Maybe at the very tip of SE louisiana where the river meets the Gulf would be the only place.
Along the coast in Miss, La, and Alabama probably more on the order of 105 knots max sustained, gusts to 120 knots.
Dry air worked in from the North and weakened it just before reaching N.O.
Along the coast in Miss, La, and Alabama probably more on the order of 105 knots max sustained, gusts to 120 knots.
Dry air worked in from the North and weakened it just before reaching N.O.
0 likes
-
MKT2005
StormWarning1 wrote:There are no reports of CAT 4 sustained winds in Katrina at landfall. Maybe at the very tip of SE louisiana where the river meets the Gulf would be the only place.
Along the coast in Miss, La, and Alabama probably more on the order of 105 knots max sustained, gusts to 120 knots.
Dry air worked in from the North and weakened it just before reaching N.O.
It was over 105 knots over an hour it made landfall.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: mitchell and 137 guests